Are older Australians more sceptical of climate change?

Patrick says:

01:38pm | 22/12/09

I hope you brought your Umbrella with you Jo-Anne, the poo storm is about to come flying it.

Anthony says:

01:39pm | 22/12/09

You are writing from a perspective that it’s the politics that are causing skepticism, when in fact it’s failing science to prove catastrophic warming. I’m 20 years old and I do not agree with the doomsday predictions that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Oh, also, Carbon Dioxide is a gas that’s colourless and odourless… very different to the scientific inaccuracy the Labor and Green parties are pedaling as ‘Carbon pollution’. It might sound catchy, but in reality it’s silly.

Humbug says:

01:42pm | 22/12/09

In answer to the header question, as an older Australian I am not in the least sceptical about man-made global warming.

The recent antics of Minchin, Abbott, Joyce and Fielding have only left me more deeply sceptical of the ability and honour of the conservatives of Australia.

We have a lot to thank the IPCC for, in so carefully documenting decades of work studying the problem and ways to tackle it. And I do think we can still deal with it. 

Summer reading? Try IPCC! http://www.ipcc.ch/

That really is all from me, now.

Eric says:

01:45pm | 22/12/09

Maybe older people are more skeptical because they’ve lived long enough to notice that the climate isn’t actually changing.

Toddzilla says:

01:49pm | 22/12/09

There’s a simple reason why the older generation is more sceptical - experience. Climate change is just the latest in a litany of public scares (all with scientific support) that have proven to be a farce. They can all remember the global cooling scare of the 70s, when the same scientists were carpetbagging by scaring people into believing the world was ending because man’s carbon output was freezing the planet. When that scare fell flat they moved to the next cash cow and the next after that until man-made global warming got legs. These people have lived through that and many other scares and are rightly sceptical. Experience shows that this latest hoax will pass like the rest of them. The naivete and gullibility of youth prevents younger folk from really analysing the issue and realising that it’s a crock.

Q.E.D. says:

01:53pm | 22/12/09

Am I old at 45?

Mikko says:

02:02pm | 22/12/09

Maybe older folks have been around long enough to recognise snake oil salesmen when they see one, Jo-anne. They know a few hot days and a couple of bushfires were not proof of anthropogenic global warming in the weeks leading up to the ETS vote, any more than the blizzards hitting the US and Europe are evidence of global cooling; They realise the Great Barrier Reef is not slowly dissolving in an acid bath and that sea levels are unlikely to rise by six or seven metres as predicted by Al Gore and Peter Garrett; they are generally wise enough to realise that the world’s climate has never remained constant at any point in its long history and that politicians and scientists who think they can dictate temperatures will rise by 1.5 or 2 degrees over the next few decades by taxing a natural gas present in minute quantities and essential to all life, are stretching the bounds of belief beyond the limits. Fortunately some younger people are wise enough to see this too, which is why climate realism is a growing world phenomenon.

Anthony Bellve says:

02:04pm | 22/12/09

It is not just older Australian’s, it is Australians of all generations who are capable of independent thought and don’t believe everything rammed down their throat by agovt with a hidden agenda. Perhaps people should do independent research, they will find that that Carbon levels, temperature levels, sea levels and temperature change have all been greater then what we are experiencing. In fact, the times where all these things were greater were during periods when humans weren’t even on the planet. I don’t believe in man made climate change, I do believe in natural climate change. The Earth has frozen, thawed, fozen, thawed for millions of years, none of which had anything to do with man. When man can stop the planet from spinning on its axis and man can stop the planet from orbiting around the sun and can stop the sun from experiencing solar flares and activity, then I will believe man can stop climate change. Man made climate change is a myth designed to scare people into world wide socialism and wealth re-distribution under the power of a world govt. Instead of taxing, plant trees and stop old growth logging, let the trees do what they do best, convert CO2 to O2, that will make the planet healthier then any tax could ever achieve. Beware the con of man, it has been proven that the man made climate change figures have been fiddled with to suit their agenda.

John A Neve says:

02:06pm | 22/12/09

As one of the older Australians, I believe it’s true that fear plays a larger part in our lives. Not only is it harder for us to change, but having taken the knocks to get here, we don’t want to lose what we have.

Sadly politics in this country is all about division and fear, the two party system makes it so. As no one can clearly see the future all our decisions aare based on the past. This is a worry, as the ideology of both Labor and Liberal are nothing like their past ideologies.

Climate change is a fact of life, how much is man made or man enhanced is open to debate. But the facts suggest we are not helping the situation and heres the rub. I and those of my age won’t be effected by our lack of action, but those we claim to love will be.

Sherlock says:

02:09pm | 22/12/09

Of course climate change scepticism is more prevalent in older people. We’re not dumb enough to get caught up in you mad lefties end of the world mantra.

We’ve seen your paranoid scares to many times. We remember you rabbiting on about nuclear winter, DDT, mega-famines, global cooling, acid rain, Repetitive Strain Injury, bird flu, the millennium bug, SARS, toxic PVC, poisonous breast implants, the end of oil, death by fluoride, the Chernobyl doom, the BSE beef that would eat your brains, GM food, peak oil or ADHD and of course don’t forget swine flu.

All mad end of the world conspiracies promoted by the eternally depressed left.

Unfortunately the young need to get burned a few times before they wisen up to the never ending “the sky is falling” cries of those praying for anything that will end their miserable lives as soon as possible.

Climate change is only the latest in a long line of the apocalyptic dreams. Just one more in their never ending quest for fast extinction.

It doesn’t matter. The man made climate change myth is now over. Copenhagen exposed to the world that it was all about money. It will quickly become a political poison pill for any government. So you can kiss goodbye to the ETS as the ever populist Kevin Rudd loses his climate change agenda behind the prime ministerial sofa with the rest of the populist policies the media grew tired of.

It won’t be long before climate change believers are treated with the same patronising smiles we give to those who still insist Y2K was a genuine threat

D'oh says:

02:13pm | 22/12/09

@ Patrick, pretty good predicition, but I shall restrain myself.

I am in my mid twenties and am skeptical of AGW/ACC.  The age argument may be true when taken as a gross generalization, but there will always be exceptions.

Jade says:

02:14pm | 22/12/09

Nope, I do not think it is just older aussies, I am 22 i don’t believe a word of it!

wolf says:

02:19pm | 22/12/09

Anthony said
“Perhaps people should do independent research, they will find that that Carbon levels, temperature levels, sea levels and temperature change have all been greater then what we are experiencing.In fact, the times where all these things were greater were during periods when humans weren’t even on the planet.”
This is precisely what is so worrying about the recent spike in carbon levels and temperature.  Think about it.

Margaret Gray says:

02:20pm | 22/12/09

@Humbug

The IPCC ranks slightly behind the UN as a rank organisation of rentseekers and carpetbaggers whose only ‘success’ has been the wholesale corrupting of the scientific process in the dogmatic pursuit of a bogus and wholly partisan agenda.

The IPCC is…

...a disgraceful charade riven with forged and fraudulent data; character assassinations and fact-free reports such as the one cited by yourself that are full of anecdotal and emotive rhetoric.

...an organisation whose leader is the worst kind of vested political animal.

Happily age brings wisdom and as Toddzilla nicely puts it:

Been there. Done that. Seen it all before.

Next.

NCG says:

02:21pm | 22/12/09

Jo-anne; Fear sells, its pretty simple stuff. As you pointed out Mr Abbott played on the fears of Australians with the idea of the ETS being a ‘tax on everything’. Similarly Mr Rudd used the idea of ‘failure to do this now will be detrimental to our children’s future’ fear to push this legislation.

I would rather both parties cut the fear factor crap and show policies for what they are. People are progressively getting smarter, generation to generation, and the methods used decades ago to force policy through, don’t work as well as they used to. The internet has allowed people to research things to a higher degree and therefore form a more comprehensive opinion rather than simply being told by an overarching authority.

Jane says:

02:23pm | 22/12/09

‘extraordinary lurch to the right’??? Um…get a grip, more like back to centre from the LEFT….and the ‘fearmongering’ you speak of…would more realisticly be that of AGW doomsday histrionics…‘polar bears dying’...‘barrier reef dying’, catatonic firestorms, sea levels wiping out entire coastal areas and advertising propaganda about poor little children of the future. Now THAT is fearmongering girlfriend. 

It never ceases to amaze me how much complete BS you moral relativists espouse in the wrongful assumption of self sanctimony.

As for age most affected by this propaganda….no doubt the younger are most likely still reeling from the brainwashing/indoctrination received from the lefty controlled education system they’ve recently escaped….or are still experiencing it. They grow up and can begin think for themselves later on….and realise it’s all been cock and bull.

gubbaboy says:

02:24pm | 22/12/09

Climategate.

Looks like you will have to pick a new scare to practice your faux moral superiority on.

orwell was right says:

02:30pm | 22/12/09

Yes older Australians are more skeptical because unlike younger Australians they are NOT being indoctrinated with all this ‘sky is falling’ propaganda at school.

Remember : Freedom is Never More Than One Generation Away From Extinction.

Slightly older sister says:

02:37pm | 22/12/09

Q.E.D. - yes honey, at 45 you are considered old.  You never have to strive to be cool again.

Jus says:

02:46pm | 22/12/09

Wow, this is almost a stupid as Malcolm Turnbull’s ridiculous article titled “It’s reckless to be a sceptic on global warming”.  No wonder we have NO balanced media coverage in this country -

The only fear-mongering has been facilitated by the warmongers shouting ” the reef is dead”, “the ice caps are melting”, “the polar bears are dying”.....  and on and on and on. At least 2-3 stories a night on every news report. The ABC has been flooded with self important alarmists crying about “deep CO2 cuts”....

ENOUGH.
Why don’t YOU as a journalist (if you are one) start to do your job?
And I’m 32 by the way.

Dan says:

02:50pm | 22/12/09

Jane, are you serious? The so-called fearmongering is agreed to by most of the leading scientists in the world. Moral relativists? It’s not the Left who’s been talking about the Munich Agreement and nonsence like that. As for propaganda and brainwashing/indoctrination received from the lefty controlled education system, I have no idea where you went to school, but I wouldn’t advertise if if I were you. Enrollments would plummet.

AUSTRALIANS PAY ENOUGH TAX ALREADY says:

03:01pm | 22/12/09

The “establishment” has now stopped presenting strong scientific argument in favour of abusing anyone who questions the dodgy “evidence” and simply repeating, at every possible turn, that the science has been proved. 

After spending many years on this earth this type of ‘behaviour’ send up a HUGE RED FLAG. It’s the type of bully behaviour that in most instances means the bluff and bravado is put out there to dissuade any opinions to the contrary and to mask the true agenda.
(skeptic > denier > extremist > ??)

I’ll say it again.

I have found that when people get abusive it is generally in an attempt to intimidate others and this suggests there are no solid arguments but some sort of agenda or need for there to be a problem. You can be any age to recognise this but real world experience helps.

How about Australian journalists start investigating why so many people question the flimsy science, the politics, the profiteers, the media bias, climategate, the whole sorry mess, instead of alluding oldies must be out of their minds to question what is summarily being shoved down their collective throats.

global warming farce says:

03:05pm | 22/12/09

The e-mail leaks from the University of East Anglia that Global Warming Advocates have been at best either reckless or negligent with data; and at worst fraudulent.

HELLO ? Media coverage?

I’m old enough to know I need to read the small print before buying something.

Mountainman says:

03:13pm | 22/12/09

Jus, you don’t do your cause much good with stupid lines like “Why don’t YOU as a journalist (if you are one) start to do your job?”
All you have to do is click on her name and it gives you her biography. She’s not a journalist by the way. Hopefully the extensive research you did before becoming a climate change sceptic was a little more detailed, although I wouldn’t bet on it!

Sarah says:

03:16pm | 22/12/09

The older generations have exploited our natural resources and left the younger ones to deal with the problem. I’d forgive them this oversight if I hadn’t met so many gerriatric climate sceptics who won’t live long enough to see the error of their ways. The science that proves anthropogenic climate change is real and harmful has been more thoroughly tested than trials of the pharmaceuticals many older people are taking. If they are so unwilling to accept this science then perhaps they should give up their publically subsidised medications too.

DocBud says:

03:25pm | 22/12/09

Sarah,

Links please to this “science that proves anthropogenic climate change is real and harmful”. Don’t link to anything from the IPCC unless you are able to point out where the proof is (because the IPCC never has produced proof of AGW).

Lenny J says:

03:25pm | 22/12/09

I am of the older generation and all I am observing is a lot of emotional, uninformed responses by people who did not study even basic science at school and who seem incapable of putting forward an even half way decent argument, because they fail or don’t want to grasp simple concepts.

Climate science by definition is an area that studies one of the most complicated and involved systems in our biosphere. All life, I repeat, all life depends for its existence on a healthy, functioning biosphere. Let that point sink home. We all die if it does and the process of that death will be long and painful.

No, scientists do not have all of the answers, no one has. What they are saying is that the risk factors are now so great that we must sit up and take notice in case they are actually right. Even the hard headed businessmen are looking at the risk profile also with alarm.

Emotional outbursts by ignorant politicians incapable and unwilling to take responsibility hold us all back. By the time the true consequences of inaction on climate change are glaringly obvious (even to the ignorant), they will have retired on their parliamentary pensions (and state they had nothing to do with it). The solutions are there and yes, I believe the problem is real.

MartoMADDOG says:

03:27pm | 22/12/09

Perhaps, as others have said above, older Australians are more sceptical because they have seen these sorts of scams before? Why should the world listen to some groupthink lefty uni students (who lack any real-world experience) when it comes to how the world should be run? I am in my twenties, and have been following this debate for many years, I have come to the conclusion that AGW is a hoax.

Aitch B says:

03:30pm | 22/12/09

Why is it that everybody brands a sceptic as a non-believer? Is it not possibe to be a believer who is sceptical of the proposed solution(s).... like me?

Shane From Melbourne says:

03:31pm | 22/12/09

Older australians aren’t more sceptical of climate change, stupidity occurs at all ages, especially in the ranks of the political parties. Actions like developing a local nuclear energy sector and a local electric car industry reduce carbon emissions and reduce dependence on oil imports. If AGW is valid then we have taken steps to combatting carbon emissions. If AGW is false then at least we have reduced dependence on oil imports. Win-win all round.

Shama says:

03:34pm | 22/12/09

The nice thing about the Net is that Mann (one of the climategate scientists) can post an article and be rebutted by commenters. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682_Comments.html  I doubt if all these commenters are the olds.  All this focus on old people seems an attempt to make it seem like even an informed opinion against AGW is cranky, old and out of the loop.  If you can’t convince people come up with a better convincing argument instead of coming up with some silly theory.

E says:

03:34pm | 22/12/09

no Sarah, the science hasnt been tested like new medicines.

With new medicines they test it on rats, to see if it kills mammals, then they test it on humans, with real measurable results.
With AGW there is no laboratory to test, no ‘rat-planet’ to test upon, the ‘science’ is based on climate models, not observation, and those models fail to capture the complexity of the real climate.
As we have seen from Climategate, the ‘consensus’ has been engineered by bullies and anyway science isnt a democracy, quite the opposite. So stop your shrill ignorant screaming and read a fricking book!

mcdazz says:

03:35pm | 22/12/09

Ha ha ha - speaking of taking the wind out of Tony Abbotts sails.

Tony Abbott is now calling for a 5pc reduction in carbon in Australia.

I guess the wind has changed (again) for Tony Abbott.

How many stances has he had on Climate Change so far over the past month?

Margaret Gray says:

03:35pm | 22/12/09

The best part of this Ageist ‘argument’ is when the warming proselytes - and cloying political opportunists like Kevin Rudd - grab the nearest human being under 20 and scream:

“...WE MUST ACT NOW…..THE LIVES OF OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN ARE AT STAKE!!!...”

Boy.  Meet wolf.

Thankfully there is always a plentiful supply of buckets at hand whenever such a deeply prophetic and apocalyptic version of the future is foretold.

E says:

03:38pm | 22/12/09

Lenny, the hard headed businessmen are not looking at climactic risk profiles, they are looking at PR risk profiles, conducting a greenwash ‘just to be on the safe side of public opinion’ and seeing if they can turn a profit from trading little pieces of paper with CO2 credit stamped on them.
You start off talking about ‘scientific argument’ and then resort to the lowest unscientific ‘argument from authority’. Lame hypocrite

Eric says:

03:42pm | 22/12/09

Lenny J, have you investigated Climategate?

David C says:

03:45pm | 22/12/09

As every good lawyer knows when you have a good argument you pound the argument, when you have a bad argument you pound the table

AT says:

03:50pm | 22/12/09

Anthony Bellve says:
“... The Earth has frozen, thawed, fozen, thawed for millions of years…”

Yes, and the earth reached those peaks and troughs over thousands of years. The ‘climate change’ experienced in an entire lifetime back then, even during the period of the fastest transition, would have been imperceptible. Contrast that with the present day and the acceleration measured over the space of just a few decades.

Granted, our current accelerated climate change could just be a natural blip in the earth’s climate that occurs every 10,000 years or something, but golly, it’s quite a coincidence that it should coincide in time and maintain lockstep with the unprecedented levels of human emissions, unprecedented numbers of belching farting bovines, unprecedented scales of forest clearing, etc, etc, etc. Don’t you reckon?

I’m not sure about the geriatrics. Even the photo in this article of the Sydney demo last week, with its idiotic “Spot the pensioner” caption, shows as many “pensioners” as it does “young” people and (excluding the polar bear) zero ferals. Well, maybe one, but she looks more goth to me.

The figurehead arrestee of those blockading the Newcastle coal train was a bloke in his eighties. I think any oldies denial sentiment being witnessed is just latest uninformed discharge from the very vocal senior equivalent of the frustrated Young Liberals who pollute these pages with ramblings.

Catherine says:

03:53pm | 22/12/09

Wow, the sceptics in the house are getting very emotional. Thankfully many have now moved on.

A very thought provoking article Jo-anne. It’s a pity so many of the comments here have missed the point.

James says:

03:57pm | 22/12/09

Thats right orwell was right.  Back when the education system was controlled by conservatives, the scare mongering focused on nuclear annihilation and the impending Chinese or Russian invasion.  Conservatives are so much better at predicting the future than lefties, aren’t they?

RB says:

04:01pm | 22/12/09

i am 23.I think man made climate change is a load of sh*t.I dont know one person my age who believes in it.NOT.ONE.To me it just seems an excuse for hippies & unistudents to have something to protest about(otherwise they might have to find jobs)

RB says:

04:07pm | 22/12/09

I am 23.I think man made climate change is a load of sh*t.I dont know one person my age who believes in it.NOT ONE.Personally i think it just an excuse for hippies & uni students to have something to protest about(otherwise they might have to find a job) & something for our useless prime minister to lay at the feet of the UN.

Steve says:

04:09pm | 22/12/09

“Humbug”, you appear not to be following the Nopenhagen thread today.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/nopenhagen-what-now-for-Kevin-Rudd/

Do you have anything to say about my criticism there of the IPCC error in modeling water vapour as a positive feedback, or about my criticism of the assumption that solar forcing is largely stable with just minor fluctuations due to sunspots?

You seem committed to the IPCC positions, so I guess that you will want to dispute me. You also seem to be scientifically literate enough to be able to do so, so I’d be interested in your responses.

It might be a nice change to the Punch community to see some real debate about the science without personal abuse. What do you say?

Anthony Bellve says:

04:10pm | 22/12/09

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Here is a link to a graph of the earth’s climate for the last 2 billion years. Sorry to say AT, but the earth has warmed up a lot quicker then it is now.

Sherlock says:

04:10pm | 22/12/09

To Quote Lenny J who at 04:25pm wrote

“I am of the older generation and all I am observing is a lot of emotional, uninformed responses by people who did not study even basic science at school and who seem incapable of putting forward an even half way decent argument, because they fail or don’t want to grasp simple concepts”

This is straight out of the climate change alarmists handbook.

Those that don’t agree with us are dumb.

However I’ll have a bet on the chance that Lenny J also believed in the Y2K bug and seriously considered buying a surgical mask during the recent Swine Flu scare.

I’m sorry Lenny but we gave you the respect to allow you to explain your theory, We listened and we waited for more evidence. However Copenhagen exposed the fraud for all the world to see.

Now the world has stopped listening. Rudd is hiding from the press who are keen to have him explain his role in this disaster ans the ETS is as dead as a Dodo.

DocBud says:

04:22pm | 22/12/09

AT,

“Yes, and the earth reached those peaks and troughs over thousands of years. The ‘climate change’ experienced in an entire lifetime back then, even during the period of the fastest transition, would have been imperceptible.”

Or not:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344.800-mini-ice-age-took-hold-of-europe-in-months.html

Or go here and then tell us your assertion is true:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

Greg says:

04:30pm | 22/12/09

Im not a skeptic, I do think that human have contributed to climate change but no one can tell me how much. So I might as well be a skeptic, why do we have to agree 100% of the climate is human related. I would accept climate change would be man made if it hasnt happened before.

sad innit? says:

04:34pm | 22/12/09

I am an oldie and proud of it, it took a lot of years of hard work to gain this silver crown. But, I am not a sceptic by any means because I have taken the time to study, not just taken a politician’s word for or against, and certainly never loose lips Abbott, whi has changed his mind again - Minchin must be kicking himself now for engineering that little kniffing.

What I have noticed is that the sceptics keep repeating the same lines. They never find anything convincing to put forward, just what some enews thingie claims as fact, yet when you read it you can’t find any “facts” except that someone dreamed up some conspiracy rhetoric they thought might muddy the waters, and it did - for some. Those who have nothing else with which to back up this conspiracy theory other than: their favourite pollie said it is.

Lenny made some good points but in jumps the sceptic with insults in place of thoughful argument. Sad innit?

D'oh says:

04:38pm | 22/12/09

@ Steve re Humbug

You called Humbug’s humbug.  It is not likely you will hear from him until the department of climate change come up with something he can link to.

wake up and smell the manipulation says:

04:42pm | 22/12/09

Jo-anne - YOU are Executive Director of the newly formed think-tank Catalyst Australia??  What exactly are you thinking about?  Because if this article ( term used loosely) is anything to go by - not much.

You look old enough (judging by your photo) to know that there isn’t really ANY left or right. It is a falsity, designed to divide and distract the sheeple.
Governments focus on winning the next election. That’s all. For someone in charge of a think tank it is hilarious that you would be so naive to think otherwise. Where’s your funding from again?

Governments get voted in. Then they do something wrong. Media spins it. Then the other mob gets voted in. Rinse and repeat. Hard to think why we are all lulled into this false sense of security by all these fly by nighters. It’s bollocks and so it the latest craze to distract us all and take more money from our pockets.

I’m 38 and already awake to all this. No wonder we are all working stiffs - no one can think beyond the next election cycle. And that’s exactly what the people at the top of the food chain like.

Quoting George Monbiot and a Lowy poll?
Wow there’s some deep thinking for us all.
I’m sorry I can’t help but dismay at your poor poor choice of references.

NEXT.

DocBud says:

04:42pm | 22/12/09

Go on then, sad innit?, you claim to have studied, give us the benefit of your wisdom and point us to what it was that convinced you.

al gore's kool aid says:

04:48pm | 22/12/09

No. But more intelligent, more well read and better informed Australians are skeptical of climate change.

Also, I note you neglect to qualify the term ‘climate change’ to AGW.
As most warming alarmists do.

Q.E.D. says:

04:57pm | 22/12/09

@ sad innit?

“sceptics keep repeating the same lines.” - now, where have I heard that before?!

“They never find anything convincing to put forward…” - if you have hard evidence in support of AGW, please refer me to your source as I am keen to find out more. By the way, who is “they”?

“with insults in place of thoughtful argument.” - I find it insulting that you think I am a consipiracy theorist.

It really is sad, innit?!

Glen says:

05:03pm | 22/12/09

I am both older and a scientist.
I have a wide circle of friends [all “sceptics"and “deniers”] who are scientists, geologists etc who have researched and understand the science.

The climate zealots believe they can alter the climate of the world by reducing the 0.0012% of all gases in the atmosphere that are attributed as humans contribution to total CO2 which is 0.0386% of the atmosphere.

The recent Russian exposure of the selective use of data from Russian weather stations by the CRU and IPCC should be another nail in the coffin of the climate zealots science.

John H says:

05:04pm | 22/12/09

It’s reckless NOT to be a skeptic…

Did you watch the madness, the cult atmosphere that took place in Denmark? Scientists use observation and experiments to find truth.
They don’t create the theory then make the facts fit the theory.

There are stories in every major publication from, 30, 20 and 10 years ago warning action had to be immediately taken to avoid disaster. These warnings were wrong. Yet the same folks and advocates continue to release scare stories about disasters only a decade ahead. If the news media bothered to go through their own files on prior scare stories a lot of these experts and advocates saying the science is settled would have no credibility at all.

i vote too says:

05:09pm | 22/12/09

I’d prefer to deal with the facts instead of labeling everyone which is becoming a very distasteful tactic of Rudd and Wong and co.

Fact - the climate is changing.

NOT a Fact - it is all down to us and we can radically alter it.

Definitely Not a Fact - if we give sums of money in extra taxes to Rudd, the UN, the World Bank, Third World despot leaders that this will solve anything - well it might solve their problems whereby they have financially trashed the country and need help BUT to pretend that it is for the GOOD of the WORLD is deceitful.

fffer says:

05:10pm | 22/12/09

If there is growing evidence that there is global warming and that CO2 is responsible then publish it and let us see it. Otherwise stop slamming people for being sceptics. Spending trillions and ruining our economy based on belief and the fear of something maybe happening is not rational.

single white female 27 says:

05:12pm | 22/12/09

I’d rather be skeptical than reckless. What is reckless is spending billions of tax payers money on CO2 reduction when it is the least effective of greenhouse gases with no absolute proven link to climate change. The vanity of politicians to think they can order the temperature not to rise by more than 2 degrees is akin to ordering the tide not to come in.

There are many factors that influence climate change and CO2 is proven to be the least effective, so limiting it will also be the least effective.

Ronny says:

05:18pm | 22/12/09

Climate change is a complex issue. When you have a PM like rudd who tries to find a quick ‘fix’ without looking at all the alternatives, understanding future implication from a economic/development point of view or the role other countries (Chine/India) play in a global solution then you end up with no viable solution. Rudd isn’t a good leader, break down his policies and ideas and you realise there are no solutions just more problems.

ACTOldFart says:

05:22pm | 22/12/09

Yes, Joanne, older Australians are more skeptical, the main reason being that we have seen it all before.  Since I’ve been observing, if you were to believe the green wet left, the world has ended several times, through pollution, overpopulation, running out of food, running out of resources, etc etc.  And believe it or not, none of it has happened - we are all still here, and better off in many ways than ever.  So why should we give any credence to the crise du jour of the watermelons?

And the other thing we have learned, Joanne, is to recognise the self-serving spin, lies and bulls%#t of the union hacks/NSW ALP apparatchicks

AT says:

05:56pm | 22/12/09

Anthony Bellve & DocBud,

Aw, geez, I didn’t realise you guys were setting the curriculum. But okay, I went ahead and checked out your links;

Anthony, you do realise the sharpest fastest climate change represented in that graph covers a period of a FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS, don’t you?

DocBud, at first blush your first link looks like a devastating demolition of my position. A prestigious science magazine reports on the work of a scientist from the University of Saskatchewan who studied mud cores from an ancient Irish lake and theorises a northern hemisphere mini ice age took hold “in months”. Good Heavens!!!

But, the sceptic in me can’t ignore the fact that this is ONE magazine article. That this is the work of SCIENTISTS. You know, those left-wing conspirators? That the University of Saskatchewan sounds as credible to me as the University of East Anglia. That the findings from the mud core samples (which were sliced off with a scalpel, btw) are as open to dispute by a sceptic as the findings from the far more extensive Antarctic ice core samples which support anthropogenic climate change are. And that this was not GLOBAL climate change.

I can only imagine you included the second link for its comedic value. I thank you for the rousing laugh it generated. A personal WordPress blog from a former weatherman flogging his weather widgets. Yep, comedy gold, that is, comedy gold!

Matt says:

07:52pm | 22/12/09

I’m 23 and don’t indulge in the eco-propaganda. That leads down the road of depopulation, living like a peasant and at hand of Government.

And I certainly to subscribe to the Axis of Evil: Coalition, Labor & Greens.

Geoff says:

08:03pm | 22/12/09

Monbiot?  You are kidding right?
Older people have more experience have lived longer and hence know more, pretty simple really.
i remember hotter summers and colder winters.
i remember more rain.
You guys have got to get a life. 
Correlation does not prove causation.
You might as well say…  Today is hot, the sky is blue, therefore blue causes global warming.
There is as yet NO PROOF that man-made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming.
Monbiot is a deluded scaremongerer. Not exactly someone I’d choose to back me up.

Anthony says:

08:50pm | 22/12/09

AT:  I am aware that in certain periods of change, the temperature raised 15’C -17’C over a period of time which which is roughly the same as the end of the pleistocene epoch to today. So you do realise, that in the time it took the planet to raise between 15-17’C, the planet now has only raised 2-4’C.

Radical Chick says:

08:58pm | 22/12/09

I don’t think that we should be pointing the finger at senior citizens….Krudd is the PM and he failed to sell climate change. Australians of all ages are skeptical of this government’s claims because such claims have not been explained to them properly.
Now Abbott comes along and provides an explanation for the ETS - a big tax on everything. This is the only explanation we have so far…and now it is so because it was not explained to the people by an elitist government and a PM who cannot speak straight English and appears to be more worried about his foreigner audience than the Australian people.
Well his foreigner audience decidedly egged him on the face…now Australians are quite frankly irritated with Kevin Rudd and he only has himself to blame for that. And that is no fault of old people. It is Krudd’s fault and he should take full responsibility for the mess….

BJM says:

09:24pm | 22/12/09

Well, having read some of the comments from the younger generation. I am 51 years of age, it gladdens my heart that they are not taken in like my generation was as at that age. Of UN dominance, Global Cooling, Global Warming, Climate Change, ‘We are all going to die’ scare mongering from the Left of politics. They at least now see, what we did not, the actual agenda of Green politics. In 1989 Communism collapsed. Now the new ideology is not Red but Green. At least this generation are faster to see the scam, than we were.

PresqueVu says:

09:27pm | 22/12/09

Good luck if you’re looking to define a demographic.

I’m a 36 year old scientist, centre-lefty, who voted Labor his whole life.  I was prepared to give the man made climate argument the benefit of the doubt.  However ,after examining the science behind climate change over the last year or so, I am well and truly in the sceptics corner.  The supercilious attitude of the man made climate change believers towards people like me is starting to make my blood boil.  I doubt many could explain the science behind their beliefs apart from it just feels like like the right thing to do.  The arguments from those who do know what they talking about can be easily countered.

There are many reasons why I will not vote for Tony Abbott but his climate change policy may be enough to make me vote for him.  It may be worthwhile putting up with the bad for a couple of terms to ensure the really bad doesn’t happen.

Pandora says:

09:28pm | 22/12/09

I’m quite old enough now, but remember the 1970s period well. The climate science was just starting to be looked at,  but papers then were no better than they are now. Blogs are no better and maybe worse.

So when the studies showed that some areas might get colder and some hotter, the media grabbed the Ice Age idea and just ran with that. Rather silly, really, when there was already so much more to the story, but no sillier than seeing it re-hashed uncritically again today. Send three-and-fourpence, we’re going to a dance, we used to say. You young ones will have to look that up, I’m afraid, before I rattle on.

I’m not sure I like people being quite rude and then hiding behind claims they were only making jokes when they’ve been pretty well setting out to bait and badger, and then do it all again too. I don’t see what it has to do with climate change. It’s just being nasty, all to be a clever clogs.

You know, it was my generation that got a stop put to atom-bomb testing in the air and in the sea. And to too much DDT,  and the ozone hole thing (freon, have I remembered right?). We worried quite a lot about smoking and lead in petrol too.

All those things took an awfully long time to fix, but we did alright in the end, I think, and later our children were pretty busy with it all too. All those tie-dyed skirts!

Of course there were no blogs then to spread rather silly rumours, so I suppose it will all look easier now but turn out to be a lot harder.  It is really quite difficult to understand why the sceptic case is so badly presented. So many posts rely on silly rumours and nastiness. And so few sceptics look at their “proofs” with a critical eye before they type away. Funny, in a way, their being so sceptical in the first place.

I don’t read here often and I don’t see much that I like when I do. I did quite like how Humbug quietly stood up to some of you bullies without being rude in return. I suppose he’s gone off now for Christmas, sensible chap if he has.  Time for me to check my mince pies, too!

When I get a chance between the grand-children and the dinner this week, I think I might spend some time reading some of those IPCC things, though goodness knows I hope there’s not too many of those initials.

I suppose, as it is the season of goodwill, I should wish you all season’s greetings, though to be quite blunt some of you would benefit more from a good swat on the behind.

As one elderly lady, I’m not frightened off by the bullies to say I am more sure than ever we must do something about our CO2. I do hope we can move faster than we have so far. 

Still, there’s always hope. I suppose that, at least, we can still take into the New Year.  Hopenhagen, my dears.

Pandora (you can look that up too if you like!)

BJM says:

09:29pm | 22/12/09

To show my point.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/copenhagen-the-moment-of-truth-20091222-lb3l.html

age is just a number says:

10:30pm | 22/12/09

” .... calm the tempers of middle Australia. ”
How condescending and self righteous could you possibly be?

Just because you have a new religion and have decided to pray at Al Gore’s alter, don’t assume the rest of us are older and unable to grasp the facts.
Do even some preliminary research and you’ll see the science on MAN MADE (missed that didn’t you) climate change and it’s effects is far from settled.

I’d rather be skeptical than gullible any day.
And age is just a number - you can’t buy common sense or else maybe you would have purchased some.

Harry says:

11:14pm | 22/12/09

Joanne, it is getting rather tedious to read articles by “lefty journalists” who keep on playing the man and not the ball!! You keep on relying on a manufactured consensus by a scientific illiterate majority about how “we” are demanding action. There are SO MANY references about Climate Gate, Millennium Warm Period, Viking farming Greenland ,etc ,etc

This is a right versus wrong issue, not right wing versus left wing or old versus young or what ever “divide and conquer” strategy you have in mind to keep the rational thinkers marginalised. What is really disturbing is that you hate conservatives that much you don’t mind bending the truth to crucify climate sceptics so you feel you are vindicated. I think they call this socialism!!

It is arrogant in the extreme to believe that man kind can create enough CO2 to warm the earth. The fact that IPCC had changed/lied/falsified/perverted evidence will tell you that the sky is not falling. To tax the middle class out of existence, keep Africa in perpetual poverty and bankers busy is the real agenda for the global ETS.

It is evil and wrong and the older people understand human nature and what happens when power corrupts. Climate change is the latest instalment in fraud and exploitation.

Sorry to be hard on you Joanne, Einstein said “ 100s of scientists can agree with me but only one has to prove me wrong”. Thank you

DocBud says:

11:23pm | 22/12/09

You are priceless, AT.

“A prestigious science magazine reports on the work of a scientist from the University of Saskatchewan who studied mud cores from an ancient Irish lake and theorises a northern hemisphere mini ice age took hold “in months”. Good Heavens!!!” A well reasoned, absolutely devestating critique of Dr Patterson’s research, I’m sure New Scientist will pull the article if you submit this to them.

Although Dr Patterson does have some support: “Renssen, a climate researcher at Vrije University in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, says recent findings from Greenland ice cores indicate the Younger Dryas event may have happened in one to three years. Patterson’s results confirm this was a very sudden change, he says.”

I love your new means of avoiding dealing with content, the ad universitas attack. The students and graduates of the Universities of Saskatchewan and East Anglia would, I’m sure, be bemused at your unwarranted attack on their alma mater.

You could not, as I expected, resist the urge to indulge in an ad hominen attack on my second link. I could have given the original link:

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

but I suspected that if I used the WUWT link you’d find it hard not to play the man. Alternatively, you could just plot the data yourself from the NOAA website:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

When you’ve done that, do come back and tell us if your assertion about the speed of past climate change relative to today still stands.

Lotie says:

12:27am | 23/12/09

“Climate skepticism” is on the rise as more information comes to light as to the questionable antics climate scientists, the IPCC and our government have resorted to to shut down any open debate on AGW.

The general public may not know how to model climate catastrophic but they recognise evasiveness and self righteous bellowing when they see it.
Feisty folks aren’t “cranky about it” - they are furious at being taken for a very expensive ride and those feisty folks are of all ages.

We do not need to concern ourselves with who is or is not skeptical. We need to de-politicize it.  Who cares about your left vs right analysis - Australians want a discussion of right vs wrong. Remove the carpetbaggers, snake oil salesmen, profiteers, third world degenerates and the UN wanabees and lets have some TRUTH.

Wayne Hutchins says:

07:44am | 23/12/09

Thanks BJM, followed your link. Bloody disgusting! Who allowed that propaganda of a mad man to be published? It’s all about money, a redistribution of wealth. I put mine back under the bed…

RT says:

07:46am | 23/12/09

Action on climate change is about dealing with the long term future. It would be hard to be enthusiastic about it if you are of an age where you have no long term future, and harder still if you have no children or grandchildren whose future should be considered.

In other words, let’s call climate change scepticism what it is for many people: an excuse for selfishness.

Q.E.D. says:

08:05am | 23/12/09

@RT 0846 hours

Are you referring to ‘climate change’ or ‘AGW’?

I am 45 (old, apparently), with 3 young boys. I am a scientist and not a sceptic or a selfish individual.

I am keen to reach my own conclusions on this complicated issue and find comments like yours extremely irritating and very unhelpful.

DocBud says:

08:06am | 23/12/09

RT,

Let’s call global warming alarmism what it is for many people, an opportunity to be sanctimonious and interfere in the lives of others whose lifestyles the alarmists disapprove of.

Just thought I’d respond in kind, after all the discussion above, alarmists still can only offer name-calling.

Liz says:

08:31am | 23/12/09

Of course the oldies reaped the benefit they did the work to make it happen.They have lived long enough to have a healthy scepticism about governments,politics and scientists.

RT says:

08:39am | 23/12/09

QED, I’m talking about action on climate change, action that will have a cost, a cost that many, including China , some other nations and many ‘sceptical’ individuals don’t want to pay.

In the case of China, it is upfront about it. It accepts the need for action on climate change but takes a ‘you first’ selfish position. Well, slightly more selfish than most of the rest of the governments around the world, perhaps.

Then there are ‘sceptics’, some of who are justifiably confused or uncertain about competing claims and predictions. Then there are those who peddle wilful distortions and untruths about the quite convincing science by posting on the web etc. Many such comments can be read right here. These people don’t want to pay for action on climate change so they are trying to show that action is unnecessary. That’s clearly a selfish position in my view. And ultimately not very successful either, I believe.

One of the few positives to come out of the Copenhagen conference is that scepticism about the need for action on climate change is not a reason advanced by governments anywhere for not reaching a better agreement. Naked national interest above global interest is the reason.

James says:

08:48am | 23/12/09

Only the scientifically illiterate are sceptical of global warming age is irrelevant.

I have a degree in physics ,I have studied the data, global warming is real alright if you can’t see that you are not worth talking to.

AT says:

09:45am | 23/12/09

Anthony & DocBud [part 2]

Anthony ~ your reply to my reply to your post doesn’t make a lot of sense. In fact, it doesn’t make any sense. You’re equating the sudden spike in current temp to a 2-4 degree rise in temp over a FEW MILLION YEARS!? I know you’re fond of links, so here’s one you should really check out;

http://www.planet52.com/catalog/images/sciex225.jpg

DocBud ~ Please don’t be upset, but I didn’t click on the links you provided in your reply to my reply to your reply to my reply to Anthony’s original post. You see, you’re just not that interesting or clever. I’m pressed to understand how you think you can be taken seriously when you post a link to the commercial blog of a retired TV weatherman as “evidence” of something or another and then completely ignore it. That’s not very rigorous science, Doc. This link should help;

https://www.fatbraintoys.com/images/products/large/SE002.jpg

When you’re done with that you needn’t feel compelled to come back and tell us what you think, though.

Jo-anne ~ I do apologise for degrading your article by engaging Anthony & DocBud in this silly off-topic expedition, but I think it proves they’re probably aged in the mid to late-teens and their PSP is broken — hence they improvise their own computer games on blogs such as this.

Cameron says:

09:49am | 23/12/09

I would consider myself to be conservative on most matters and getting into the older age category at 63. Conservative people, by definition are those who are least likely to take chances on things happening that might adversely affect them.. They consider what evidence might be available and take action based upon that evidence in order to keep things running smoothly. Conservatives are not into sticking their necks out too far. While climate change science is not full of absolutes, conservative people such as myself sit up and take notice when so many scientists see thing moving in a particular direction. If there is a reasonable chance they might be right, then the result could be catastrophic for the world at large. If they are wrong, then by taking action to reduce global warming could only result in a cleaner world, albeit at a cost. As a conservative non scientist I would prefer not to take such chances and would like to see action taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (and emissions of other substances that might further pollute the world). It would also be nice to think that we could have this discussion without resort to the level of personal abuse that appears to be rampant in many quarters where climate change or otherwise is discussed

Matt says:

10:00am | 23/12/09

@  RT says:  09:39am | 23/12/09

  “QED, I’m talking about action on climate change, action that will have a cost, a cost that many, including China , some other nations and many ‘sceptical’ individuals don’t want to pay.”

What? Pay to an unelected foreign bureaucracy? Are you at all aware that the World Bank & IMF could possibly be involved in such transactions?

Would you support the AFP enforcing an ETS?: http://tinyurl.com/yav9ae7

Redistribute our tax dollars offshore to dictators and mis-managers who already are cutting off money to their people and starving them to death? 

  “Then there are ‘sceptics’, some of who are justifiably confused or uncertain about competing claims and predictions. Then there are those who peddle wilful distortions and untruths about the quite convincing science by posting on the web etc. Many such comments can be read right here. These people don’t want to pay for action on climate change so they are trying to show that action is unnecessary. That’s clearly a selfish position in my view. And ultimately not very successful either, I believe.”

Here’s your selfishness you self righteous eco-hipster: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/carbon-compo-hunger-strike/1706255.aspx

I bet you want by-the-Km tracker boxes in our cars to tax us while we drive? A one child policy or a tax incentives on having less children? Perhaps a carbon credit card with only a limit allowance of credit of carbon to purchase those gassy products?

  “One of the few positives to come out of the Copenhagen conference is that scepticism about the need for action on climate change is not a reason advanced by governments anywhere for not reaching a better agreement. Naked national interest above global interest is the reason.”

Ahhhh there’s the wolf is sheep’s clothing. National interest above GLOBAL interest.

A clever way of saying screw national sovereignty, your under global governance now. Clever Globalist minion you are.

“We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.” - Ban-Ki Moon UN Secretary General

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-ban16-2009dec16,0,1781040.story

——
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-draft-accord-agreed-20091218-l1jo.html

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the final text, “Proposes a range of innovative mechanisms for raising the money, ranging from a tax on air and sea transports fuels to a tax on financial transfers.”

This would form part of an initial commitment of $US10 billion a year from 2010 to 2012, climbing to $US50 billion annually by 2015 and $US100 billion by 2020, although these figures will inevitably increase if the UN ramps up its climate fearmongering as it has done at each successive climate conference since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

Who’s selfish?

Davy says:

10:02am | 23/12/09

Well James I’ll see your degree and raise it with a few post grads.

What is this. I must know more because I said so and if you dont believe me I’ll take my bat and ball and go home.

Isnt it science and its pursuits that supposedly caused these problems in the first place ? Why listen to any scientist. Sort of “sorry I know that what I have been doing has raped and pillaged the land but now I know its wrong and guess what I know how to fix it “.

I think the state of the planet is often blamed on the older generation . They didnt look after it.
Is this real. How many oldies used to have a compost. Back then beer and milk bottles were not just recycled they were reused. Most of the pensioner generation did not see overseas travel as a right of passage and essential to find ones true inner self.

Have a look in the house of a pensioner and compare the usage of resources to a modern dinks house.

I would suggest that the breakdown of who votes for what in the case of mankind induced global warming will often be found to be ralated directly to the sense of guilt that person has.

Steve says:

10:06am | 23/12/09

RT, you seem to be the leading proponent of climate change action here today. Are you able to respond to my criticisms (in discussion with “humbug” previously) of the IPCC assertions that water vapour is a positive feedback, and that solar forcing is largely constant apart from sunspot activity?

I think these two points are critical.

If water vapour is not a positive feedback, then all the alarmist predictions are mistaken, and we can relax the panic and assess the science a bit more dispassionately.

If the solar forcing assumptions are invalid, then the entire case that the recent warming has been due to the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide collapses.

I’m having trouble finding anyone who is willing and able to address these criticisms. I tried phoning the BoM, but the weather expert that I spoke with claimed that it was outside her area of expertise. If anyone else reading this is able to jump in, that would be appreciated.

cats says:

10:06am | 23/12/09

Everything that we do has an effect elsewhere - its the law of physics. “Skeptics” believe that pumping all manner of pollution into the atmosphere is going to have no effects whatsoever. It’s amazing, isn’t it?
Yes, climate change is a natural process and a lot of what is happening is natural.. but the pollution that is being generated is having very damaging effects therefore is also contributing to climate change.

Someone please stand up and tell me that you sincerely believe that pollution is having no effects whatsoever on absolutely anything in this world. I dare you.

DocBud says:

10:19am | 23/12/09

AT,

You claim: “DocBud ~ Please don’t be upset, but I didn’t click on the links you provided in your reply to my reply to your reply to my reply to Anthony’s original post. You see, you’re just not that interesting or clever.” (There’s that alarmist supercilious name-calling again.)

Strange then that in your comment on the links you managed to say:

“A prestigious science magazine reports on the work of a scientist from the University of Saskatchewan who studied mud cores from an ancient Irish lake and theorises a northern hemisphere mini ice age took hold “in months”.”

All that from not clicking on the link. Seems to me like someone is telling big, fat porkies.

It seems all you are good for is puerile attempts to belittle others, sucking up to Jo-anne and terminological inexactitudes.

James says:

10:23am | 23/12/09

Davy says:11:02am | 23/12/09

Well James I’ll see your degree and raise it with a few post grads.

Davy,

What is your actual point?  What are your post grads in?  I said age is irrelevant only scientific literacy is.  The problem is selfishness and overconsumption none of which has anything to do with the scientific method.

You may want to read what I have said and have an actual point next time you respond, you may have learned how to do that in one of your post grad degrees.

DocBud says:

10:28am | 23/12/09

cats,

Please, provide links to justify this assertion: “Skeptics” believe that pumping all manner of pollution into the atmosphere is going to have no effects whatsoever. It’s amazing, isn’t it?”

This is what is known as a strawman argument, you ascribe something to the other side that is not true and then argue against that rather than their true ideas.

Sceptics are sceptical of the relative importance placed on the various factors by alarmist scientists and of the certainty with which they make pronouncements on a highly complex, poorly understood science that is still in its infancy.

Steve says:

10:31am | 23/12/09

Hey, James the physicist who’s studied the data, can you please answer my 2 main criticisms of the IPCC reports?

BTW, I too studied physics. Post grad too. Done papers, books, modeling and so on, so you can be as technical as you like.

Matt says:

10:41am | 23/12/09

cats says: 11:06am | 23/12/09

Co2 isn’t a pollutant….

Laurie says:

10:47am | 23/12/09

If the problem is so serious why doesnt the Government consult the people. i havent seen anyone at my local town hall offering consultation and advice and suggesting of what we can do. I coal is the cause why not use gas and less coal. we have plenty of gas.  For goodness sake someone say something constructiveness. I do not believe anything that Rudd or Wong say and it is time they were replaced and the leaders in the climate discussions.

Jugger says:

11:01am | 23/12/09

Well done RT, you’ve got the conspiracy nuts flapping.

Every government in the world now acknowledges AGW.  Even the poster boy for the religious right, the mad monk, has acknowledged that action needs to be taken.  Yet some anonymous Punch readers still thing it’s a giant global conspiracy.  These nuts think that they are the only ones intelligent enough to ‘see’ the truth.  It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.

Sherlock says:

11:15am | 23/12/09

@ Jugger at 12.01pm

I think Copenhagen completely wrecked your claim that Every government in the world now acknowledges AGW.  Even the poster boy for the religious right, the mad monk, has acknowledged that action needs to be taken.

If they really “acknowledged that action needs to be taken” then why was none taken? The Earth summit in Rio was in 1992. 17 years later and still nothing has happened.

Doesn’t really sound like government are convinced of the need to take action.

BTW here’s a quick question for the alarmists?

Has the world cooled since 1991?

Davy says:

11:27am | 23/12/09

Cats I dont think anybody is denying that pollution is and can be a problem and yes the butterfly affect is consistent with most physics assertions ( although some quantum affects the jury should still be out on).

Climate change is a natural process, you would have to be reasonably slow to ignore that.

The argument is over weather (pun intended), measures being proposed are going to have any positive outcomes or are merely going to cost. Perhaps more CO2 means more plants and a better world for all.

Knowing that everything has an effect then is an individuals negativity about the future perhaps going to bring about that negative thing.

Walking produces more CO2.
If walking shouldnt be done it would seem rather foolish to shoot yourself in the foot (at least you were doing something)and pay someone else (such as high profile banks) for the pleasure of doing so.

Matt says:

11:36am | 23/12/09

@Jugger

Care to explain this?:

“We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.” Ban-Ki Moon - LA Times

“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”  EU President Rompuy - http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_9245_en.htm

“A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built.” Ban-Ki Moon - NY Times

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” - John P. Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar from his book Ecoscience

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Leonid says:

11:56am | 23/12/09

As a long time old union official, Ms Schofield may not recognise (or want to) the truth of the well known refrain:

People at 20 who don’t vote socialist have no heart.

People at 40 who vote socialist have no brain.

Perhaps now it’s about time everybody, of whatever age, who wants to sensibly reduce energy and water use said “To hell with the politics, this mustn’t be kicked around as just a Left/Right thing.”

The humourless Wong and vainglorious Rudd have been strutting about playing their political wedge games for three years, and now they are reaping the result of their disgraceful posturing.  In fact the cloud of hot air culminating in Dopenhagen has been a distraction from the non-political, real issues of energy efficiency and population growth which sensible people want to get on with addressing.

alteria says:

12:02pm | 23/12/09

Sherlock - the old chestnut - yes the world has warmed for each of the past three decades to 2009. You however could point to someone selectively using statistics to prove otherwise, but it’s not washing. There will be action of climate change as soon as nations realise the time has come where trying to put national interest first doesn’t work because action on climate change is in the interest of every nation.

Scepticism will not prevail.

Matt, yes OK, it’s just a one big world government theory. We should all wait to fry or drown because of that risk.

Q.E.D. says:

12:03pm | 23/12/09

@ cats

Don’t you mean ‘denier’ and not ‘sceptic’? There is a difference!

Q.E.D. says:

12:09pm | 23/12/09

@ jugger 2101

So, ‘denier’, ‘sceptic’ and ‘consipirary theorist’ are all the same thing. Silly me! Don’t forget to sprinkle some Mad Monk too.

I’m just waiting for Rudd to blame Abbott for the failure in Copenhagen.

KISS says:

12:12pm | 23/12/09

I will.

Just look up “government” in any good dictionary. Then look up “governance” and “regime”.

Note the difference between the first and the other two.

Simple.

samtheman says:

12:15pm | 23/12/09

Can ThePunch please require registration before posting?

I get the feeling whenever there is discussion on climate change, the same bunch of posters bombard the comments section under various pseudonyms.

Anthony says:

12:23pm | 23/12/09

AT SAID “Anthony ~ your reply to my reply to your post doesn’t make a lot of sense. In fact, it doesn’t make any sense. You’re equating the sudden spike in current temp to a 2-4 degree rise in temp over a FEW MILLION YEARS!? I know you’re fond of links, so here’s one you should really check out”

It is pretty clear from the graph, that the current warming trend of the planet started from roughly half way through the pleistocene epoch. The Pleistocene epoch started 2.5million years before present. In that duration of time the planet has only warmed by up to 4C. From the late Ordovician epoch to the early silurian epoch, a duration of time roughly the same as the current warming trend, the planet raised 15C. So, in a time duration roughly the same, the planet has only warmed up to 4C, where in the past it has warmed 15C.  The current warming trend, is very similar to the trend the period of warming between the Berriasian era and the Aptian era. So I am comparing two temperature rises over a similar duration of time, one raised 15C the other 4C.
Basically the current warming trend is not the fastest, in fact it is relatively average. The earth has experienced far worse, and it appears to be nothing more then part of a normal cycle.
I am not so short sighted as to look at one small part of a trend which is taking place over hundreds of thousands of years, as proof man must be creating the warming. Especially considering the very trend of warming which man is being blamed for started hundred of thousands of years ago.
I to am impressed with your high and mighty, holier then thou attitude. It is always good to see someone resort to childish antics, whilst accusing the other person of being a child.

James says:

12:44pm | 23/12/09

Steve says:11:31am | 23/12/09

Hey, James the physicist who’s studied the data, can you please answer my 2 main criticisms of the IPCC reports?

BTW, I too studied physics (In highschool). Post grad too (In woodwork). Done papers (on woodwork), books, modeling (for Kmart) and so on, so you can be as technical as you like.

Water vapour,increases as CO2 increases global average temperature, so it amplfies the warming caused by CO2.  And no water vapour dosn’t cause run away warming, it reaches an equilibrium with the new global average temperature, until more CO2 is added that is.

What about solar forcing? who is seriously suggesting that the rise in global average temperature can be explained by increased solar output.

Next time study at a real university and not an Elizabeth street one.

James says:

12:47pm | 23/12/09

Davy says:12:27pm | 23/12/09

Cats I dont think anybody is denying that pollution is and can be a problem and yes the butterfly affect is consistent with most physics assertions ( although some quantum affects the jury should still be out on).

Perhaps more CO2 means more plants and a better world for all.

—————————————————————————————

Yeah Davy and smoking actually is good for you.  You must have gone to the same Elizabeth street “University” as Steve.  This stuff is serious, if you haven’t got anything useful to say just shut up.

Uncle Buck says:

01:28pm | 23/12/09

Read the IPCC reports. Read the sources citied. Every “argument” put forward today has been threshed out and dealt with in a far more comprehensive and transparent manner than the amateur “sleuths” here today.
Climta change is happening;
We are responsible;
And for the future of our species (and 80% of all others);
We have to stop.
BTW When you say: “I have thoroughly researched AGW and am convinced that it is a scam”, you are lying and/or not very bright.

AT says:

01:56pm | 23/12/09

DocBud says: 11:19am | 23/12/09

Oh dear, oh deary me.

For someone who portrays themselves as a scholar in matters climatic with all those links and clinical dissections of other’s posts, you’ve really discredited yourself this time. Too much red cordial, perhaps?

It’s clearly obvious the links I didn’t click which I referenced in my reply to your reply to my reply to your reply to my reply to Anthony’s original post were the ones in your reply to my reply to your reply to my reply to Anthony’s original post and not your reply to my reply to Anthony’s original post. What makes you think I would be so foolish as to claim to not have clicked the links in your reply to my reply to your reply to my reply to Anthony’s original post in my reply to your reply to my reply to your reply to my reply to Anthony’s original post?

Do try and keep up Doc.

Here’s a desperately pertinent link that amazingly, you with your startlingly brilliant forensic powers, haven’t shared with us;

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

Cuppa says:

02:01pm | 23/12/09

Pandora, you just proved to me that age is no guarantee of wisdom.Its a real shame that someone you age cant see through the climate change farce.You probably also think Kevin Rudd is doing a great job.Pathetic.

sad innit? says:

03:33pm | 23/12/09

Pandora: well said, that’s a nice little box of words you opened
The insults flitting around here are pretty amazing.

How about instead of asking (demanding really) people to prove their side of things (not political sides, please) is right, you go off, for a month or two preferably, and find easily translated evidence that they are wrong. Your favourite links don’t count, you have to be able to show how and why the other side is wrong: from your in depth study of all relevant material.
Then re-word it so that a three-year-old could grasp it because that’s what you are each claiming is the level of intelligence of the other side. If you are a truly superior being this should be a breeze. Which is why I will not lay out what I have been reading for you, as one commenter demanded.

Now Leonid, you state: “To hell with the politics, this mustn’t be kicked around as just a Left/Right thing.”  Then go straight into a diatribe about Rudd and Wong (ergo Labor). Did you do that with a straight face, I wonder.

Merry Christmas everyone, and in the new year may your lungs be enjoy pollution-free air.

Steve says:

03:47pm | 23/12/09

James, let’s concentrate on whether water vapour is a positive feedback.

I claim that relative humidity has been steadily falling. To check me, go to
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
and get a plot of relative humidity between 30N and 30S at 300mb. That equates to where the hot spot would be if the warming were due to the greenhouse effect and water vapour was a positive feedback.

You should be able to see a clear downward trend without any further analysis. It is because of this fall in relative humidity that the hot spot is not there. This invalidates the key assumption of constant relative humidity that the IPCC rely on for all their alarming projections.

Do you see any fallacy in my argument?

PS. I’ve not called you any nasty names. I’m not good at that sort of thing.

D'oh says:

03:53pm | 23/12/09

[face palm]

Collective AGW/ACC believer FAIL.

@ alteria:

“You however could point to someone selectively using statistics to prove otherwise, but it’s not washing.”
Selectively using statistics had been elevated to an art form by the likes of the IPCC, UEA, Al Gore…...you get the picture.  It is interesting though that when one inspects ALL the RAW data (where is it again UEA??) the cause for alarm goes away and climate change is seen for the natural phenomenon it is.

“Scepticism will not prevail.”

I am sure glad that Galileo, Columbus, Newton and Einstein were sceptical and dared to think against the establishment.  Unless scepticism prevails, progress and humanity will stop.

“We should all wait to fry or drown because of that risk.”

To quote the infamous Humbug: “humbug!”  This is just a regurgitation of alarmist rubbish.  I hate to break it to you alteria but it is not going to happen.

@ Uncle Buck: you obviously have the opportunity to read through the leaked UEA data.  Not surprising since the media won’t touch it.  Have a read here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
“Climta change is happening” – no one is disputing that, the climate has always changed and will always change.
“We are responsible” – now this is where the disagreement lies.

“And for the future of our species (and 80% of all others); We have to stop.”

So, where did you get your 80% figure from?  Life generally flourishes much better in a warmer climate.  Just look throughout history or check out the diversity of life in the tropics.

“BTW When you say: “I have thoroughly researched AGW and am convinced that it is a scam”, you are lying and/or not very bright.”

Meh I could say the same for those that blindly believe AGW/ACC but you are entitled to your opinion (that is the point to this site after all).  To completely disregard the concerns of many how have found fault with what has been force fed to us over the last decade with regards to AGW/ACC is folly and an admission of ignorance.

Davy says:

04:20pm | 23/12/09

I think I’ve come up with a new solution.

Look its true that it will cost us billions but hey, what is the planet worth. It is after all our very survival at stake.

Its quite a simple concept really.
Trees and veg are in fact our enemy.
Its true they do lock up carbon from co2 which is a marginal greenhouse gas.  Unfortunately though, as the branches and leaves fall off and decay they release methane which is quite a major greenhouse gas.

Obviously the only solution is to doze all the trees and cover them with soil to a depth that will trap their carbon content , including the methane.
This will of course turn the world into a desert thus increasing its albedo.
Its so simple…no trees =no methane =less solar radiation absorbed by dark objects + added benefit of reflected radiation and co2 should stay roughly the same.
If we then just wait about a million years I am sure we will begin to see some temperature drops.

Look I know there will be some initial resistance to this idea particularly from those who actually like trees but once again, what is the planet worth.

(I suggest everone go and buy caterpillar shares. They are going to go through the roof when this idea gets picked up).

AT says:

04:22pm | 23/12/09

Anthony says: 01:23pm | 23/12/09

Oh, FFS.

You’re STILL arguing the current surge in temperature (and all the other climate oddities?) is nothing more than part of the earth’s normal warming/cooling cycle. That the predicted 2-4 degree rise in temp over a mere few decades is somehow a natural part of this cycle, despite all similar changes in temp throughout all of pre-history having taken HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

It’s like arguing the south east Asian tsunami was part of a natural cycle of rising sea levels.

Keep banging away at that drum if you must, but please don’t be surprised when you’re dismissed as a “child”.

Pandora says:

04:31pm | 23/12/09

Well, thank you dear. At my age, we’ve seen really quite a lot of the very best and the very worst in people.

In the war, you know, if some-one was really rude to you,  you could guess pretty well they’d either been very badly frightened or were working very much too hard, poor dears.

Nowadays, it’s usually just too much to drink or bad temper. Certainly not worth paying the least attention to. That would only encourage them, you see.

I’m sure we can all do very much better than we do, when we try a little bit harder. Do as you would be done by, I was taught. Even when it doesn’t seem to working, it is, you know!

Now there’s rather a lot to do before the family get here, so I’d better better get on with other things as its far too hot for more pastry this afternoon.

I think I’ve said all I wanted to. I don’t know what my children will think if they see this but my son was quite right, when he suggested not to use my own name.

I’m pleased one of you liked my little Pandora joke, dear. I suppose you know she was tricked into opening the box. Did you know it was a jar, really! Anyway, Merry Christmas and not too sad, I hope!

DocBud says:

05:22pm | 23/12/09

AT,

I’ll take it from your prevarication that you cannot refute the evidence in the New Scientist paper and the NOAA central Greenland ice core records that there is nothing unprecedented about current rates of climate change and that, therefore, your original assertion, despite your persistence, was wrong. Shouting does not change the facts.

D'oh says:

05:25pm | 23/12/09

@ Pandora (nice screen name BTW - shame about mine face palm and D’oh were my reactions upon first reading some of the articles and comments on this site).

“Well, thank you dear. At my age, we’ve seen really quite a lot of the very best and the very worst in people.”

The best example of this is the leaked data from UEA.  Take some time to read it along with the IPCC reports on your time off.

Merry Christmas!!

Greg says:

05:47pm | 23/12/09

James and AT, you both seem to know a lot about climate change. Perhaps you two could replace the good doctor that head’s up the IPCC. I hear he is nothing more than a railway engineer with a doctorate in economics. Oh, and a rich industrialist in the same vein as Al Gore. I don’t think the IPCC wants qualified people though, just good salesmen.

Pistola says:

06:11pm | 23/12/09

Having read many of these comments and been left thorougly depressed by the level of ignorance, I would just like to put my hand up and say I’m not a skeptic. That’s about it really. Just in case anyone else is reading and starting to think most Australians don’t believe in good solid science… I do.

For anyone who is a bit uncertain, perhaps try this:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

fehowarth says:

06:42pm | 23/12/09

Maybe after 10 or more years of scares, we are no longer listening.  Problem with this is that we have lost the ability to recognise danger.  Was not there a story back in the dark ages about someone continually claiming the sky was falling. No one listen when he reported a real danger.  Cannot remember much more of the story except that all suffered. The danger for us all are that the present climate changes are true.

Greg says:

07:04pm | 23/12/09

Pistola, I urge you read a little deeper into the claims at your quoted link that the Climate Change scientists do have accurate temperature data. They say they use filters to edit the temperature data, and herein lies the problem. Temperature records in NZ, Australia (Darwin airport) and now in Russia would appear to have been filtered a little bit to much. Unfortunately a lot of filtering of temperatures has gone on at the now discredited University of East Anglia (and even more modelling). The problem with the climate change argument is that it relies completely on temperature data being accurate which it isn’t and lets not forget that supposedly accurate temperature records have only been collected over the last 150 years. That’s a pretty short time frame in the whole context of Earth’s existence and I don’t care for the accuracy of tree rings and ice cores to be able to discern exact temperatures millions of years ago.

Pistola, to say that you do believe in good science isn’t a crime, I think most people do. The problem is “climate change” and “global warming’” is not good science. At best it is disputed science and that is a fact. At worst it is a fraud that revolved around scientific grants, a flawed peer review process and few individuals of dubious backgrounds who happen to be about to make a lot of money.

This argument is not about skeptics or believers because we are discussing scientific data and theory and those tags do nothing but make the whole issue sound like a religion which it is in danger of becoming. I recommend you base your opinion on more than one website and I think most people who are a little uncertain have enough intelligence to find what they are looking for without your links.

AT says:

07:15pm | 23/12/09

Okay DocBud, try not to wet yourself, but here’s my quivering pathetic response to your devastating challenge: no, I cannot refute that one magazine article. But I do not concede that it and the Greenland ice core stuff proves that current temp changes are not unprecedented. That’s because there’s a shitload more magazine articles and papers and studies and research and what have you that say it is unprecedented. Can you refute all that?

I doubt it, but weather you can or not, it’s of no more consequence than what I can or cannot refute. That’s alright though, because for you this is just an infantile game played in this virtual arena — I wonder, who do you boast to about these abstract struggles? Anyone? Anyone made of flesh and blood?

No matter, win lose or draw, I’m sure you’d want to play an admirable game, so why don’t you toughen up and answer my earlier challenges, just like I’ve answered yours.

And earlier still, when you posted a link to the blog of a former TV weatherman who was flogging weather widgets on his site, that was really, really dopey of you, wasn’t it?

Come on, DocBud, be an adult! Stand up to this challenge! Prove yourself worthy! The future of the world rests on shoulders!

Well, no it doesn’t actually. But at least you might not be so readily dismissed as a fatuous adolescent.

Peter says:

07:26pm | 23/12/09

It is probably because older people have lived long enough to have been through many droughts, floods, heatwaves, cold-snaps etc, not to mention being old enough to have been through many scientific predictions that have never materialised. They are also probably wise enough to know when they are being conned.

cats says:

07:52pm | 23/12/09

Look, DocBud, you may have enough time to search the Punch for specific quotes that specific people have said, but i do not. I am making my conclusion about skeptics or deniers or whatever you want to call yourselves, from what they have written on the climate articles. People are saying that humans are having no effect on the climate changing and that all of it is natural, and they think there is no reason they should change their ways, because humans are doing nothing bad to the planet.

And YES i generalise sometimes. But you know what? So does everybody. Maybe some skeptics or deniers do think pollution is a bad thing, but there are many here who don’t think it is, and thats what i think is amazing. What do you think the government should be doing about climate change? And don’t start critisizing Rudd about Copenfailen - that was not his fault.

Daniel says:

08:05pm | 23/12/09

Older Australians generally dont have the education to follow and understand the science.

Q.E.D says:

08:14pm | 23/12/09

@ Pistola

Thanks for the link. Nice graphics etc., but obviously written by someone AGW positive. The devil is in the details of the analysis - statistics, modelling etc. That’s where all the ‘tricky’ stuff gets done and some of it can be quite ‘naughty’.

Still sceptic, but that’s science for you.

Anthony says:

08:22pm | 23/12/09

@ AT:
That is the problem, this whole man made climate change argument is based on predicitions, which have not been accurate yet. The fact that the predictions from scientists keep changing with the politcial tide, means they don’t have a clue.
Example, Copenhagen was a failure, so scientists issue a statement shortly after saying, actually people, our predictions were wrong, the temeprature rises will be greater and quicker then previously thought.

The whole man made climate change argument is based on scientific evidence which disregards all of the current warming trend which started hundreds of thousands of years ago, and instead focuses on a couple of hundred years of a much larger trend.
So to prove and validate their predictions, the govt funded scientists discard hundreds of thousands of years worth of proven scientific evidence. 

It’s like arguing that 2010 will be the hottest year ever because the 15 Nov is predicted to be the hottest day on record and discarding the rest of the temperature data for the year prior to that day to validate your prediction.

So you keep banging your drum about ever changing, inaccurate, scare mongering predictions.

I hope you don’t use foul language abbreviated or not on and attempted belittling behaviour on your students.

DocBud says:

09:20am | 24/12/09

AT,

It’s difficult to refute something if one doesn’t know what one is refuting. “There’s a shitload more magazine articles and papers and studies and research and what have you that say it is unprecedented” does not cut it in the science world as reference.

You seem to be rather fixated on Anthony Watts, did he run over your cat or something? It was not dopey to use the reference, it outed you as someone who prefers to indulge in ad hominen attacks than deal with data. It was a simple matter to go from the link to the original data, but you found it easier to dismiss it because Anthony Watts is guilty of being a “former weatherman” and making a living.

cats,

“Maybe some skeptics or deniers do think pollution is a bad thing, but there are many here who don’t think it is, and thats what i think is amazing.”

You claim there are many here yet can’t quote one. I think all sceptics believe pollution is undesirable, but carbon dioxide is not pollution. Most sceptics believe that human emissions of CO2 are not something to lose sleep over because as yet nobody has produced any meaningful evidence to suggest they should. I don’t think the government or the UN or anybody else should do anything about climate change other than what humankind has always done, which is adapt to it as it happens.

Anton Merlot says:

09:27am | 24/12/09

I’m a septaugenarian and am not at all skeptical about CC/GW.  That’s because I KNOW it’s all bullshit!

AT says:

09:38am | 24/12/09

Anthony says:  09:22pm | 23/12/09

 
“I hope you don’t use foul language abbreviated or not on and attempted belittling behaviour on your students.”

“foul language abbreviated or not” What’s that all about, Tone? What are you talking about? What are you referencing?

What makes you think I have students? But if I did, what business is it of yours if I use foul language abbreviated or not and attempt to belittle them? If it’s wrong to use foul language with students is it okay to use fowl language with chickens? Is it too late to defrost my turkey for xmas tomorrow? Noah’s ark ended up on Mt Ararat in Turkey, do you reckon that flood was climate change? I wonder if Yasser Arafat ever expressed an opinion about global warming? Hey, it’s really hot today, is that why brains hurt?

James says:

11:04am | 24/12/09

Steve says:04:47pm | 23/12/09

James, let’s concentrate on whether water vapour is a positive feedback.

I claim that relative humidity has been steadily falling. To check me, go to
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
and get a plot of relative humidity between 30N and 30S at 300mb. That equates to where the hot spot would be if the warming were due to the greenhouse effect and water vapour was a positive feedback.

You should be able to see a clear downward trend without any further analysis. It is because of this fall in relative humidity that the hot spot is not there. This invalidates the key assumption of constant relative humidity that the IPCC rely on for all their alarming projections.

Do you see any fallacy in my argument?

PS. I’ve not called you any nasty names. I’m not good at that sort of thing.

——————————————————————————————————————

Well I am, you are a goose.  Firstly you you need to look at water vapour in a ppm sense or mg/m3 rather than relative humidity, was the air warms it can hold more water, therefore relative humidity can stay the same even though water vapour concentrations increase.

You would have to show that water vapour concentrations decrease, over the whole air column for a statistically significant number of columns to show that water vapour is a negative feedback.

Come back to me when you can do that

AT says:

11:59am | 24/12/09

DocBud says:
“ad hominen” [sic]

Yeah!? Well, check this out;

“One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is “ad hominem”. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. “

I especially like the “delicate of personality and mind” bit. And I’ve even got a link for it!!! Here, check it out;

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

What about that, eh!? Nyah nyah nyah, nyah nyah, nyah. LOL ROTFLMAO ETC…

Humbug says:

01:34pm | 24/12/09

In various posts here and on the Copenhagen thread, Steve questions the treatment of water vapour and solar variation in the scientific work on global warming. 

As far as I can see, from the latest report on the Physical Science Basis from the IPCC, he’s mistaken on both counts. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

The water vapour case is discussed in a number of chapters, both from a natural level and man-made perspective, and I saw no evidence of a flat assumption on humidity.  Further, the case for man-made vapour contribution is discussed in detail and assessed as small. The natural level of water vapour is much larger and its green house effect catered for.
See http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html
and
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3-7.html
for example, as starting points.  It appears that in taking issue with the BBC simple summary, Steve may have mistaken a distinction between natural water vapour vs man-made as contradictory. Not so. The first is important, the second is not.

As for glaring omission of longer term solar effects, he’s also wrong. Discussed in the broad in a number of places, for example
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-3.html
and
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-9-2.html

This whole business is complicated and the science discussion is very dense for laymen like us. The fact that the IPCC has gone to great lengths to publicly record, quantify and source the entire range of available data and modelling, whether strong or weak, is an indication of care and thoroughness.  If practical hoaxing or plain incompetence were at play, to lay all their cards in the open for assessment and discovery of blunder is hardly the chosen path for a successful scam or cover up.

I’d be grateful if the usual claque resisted the temptation to nit pick at *me* personally using only these links. I’ve included them only for illustration of the sheer scale of the resource available.  Rather than shooting from the hip, those who wish to take issue with the science will need to do a great deal of study of the materials first. 

If time permits over Christmas and New Year, I may try and revisit the latest and previous Physical Science Basis reports in more depth, though I’m making no promise - both very substantial. Besides, the sort of posts made so often here leave little room for any confidence that it would be worth the effort.

Lastly, I suppose at the age of 60 I too qualify to comment on the original question. For me, no,  not at all cynical about climate change.  Recent work has only made me more confident of man-made warming, while recent events only underline the sheer effort needed to start working on fixes.

However, I am indeed now more cynical than ever about conservative motives - short-term self-interest, in short. Nice ploy there by Mr Hockey though - a very quick flick of the poison chalice, by as neat a piece of kite flying on “conscience vote”  I’ve seen in many year.

In closing for the year I do thank Pandora for her insights. Some of the remarks dished up to her were utterly shameful. She reminds me of a favourite Aunt of mine, now dead, who in old age was charming, utterly fearless, and sharp as a tack.  The patience and clarity of Pandora, Persephone and Alteria and a few others does leave some room for hope.

Heather says:

03:53pm | 24/12/09

I’m 38 going on 39 and am dubious of MMCC (I have studied history for years and always *did* wonder what had happened to the Medieval Warm Period in scientific debate until Climategate neatly answered my question for me).

Um… which age bracket do I fall into? I’m sure the 18-19 year olds who have lived wth incessant MMCC & GW propaganda sans all the facts for most of their lives would consider me an “older Australian” but the 60-70 yos would say I’m still a young chicken…

Anthony says:

04:00pm | 24/12/09

AT:  I may not be as high and mighty and sanctamonious as you, but even with my limited capacity compared to you, I understand the meaning of FFS.

By the way I read your previous post regarding referencing Tsunamis being caused by a natural cycle of rising sea levels, it didn’t make a lot of sense. In fact, it really made no sense at all.

As for your last post, well that is probably the third biggest piece of drivel I have ever read, beaten only by the numerous and ever changing man made climate change predictions and the bible.

That is what I love about climate change alarmists. They absorb and believe all the predictions (and there have been many) and all the fear mongering by their self serving leaders. When their unquestioning blind faith in the predictions is questioned, they always resort to name callling, more fear mongering, belittling and ignorance.

At the end of the day, the planet was warming long before human industrialisation. If, by some miracle, one of the thousands of predictions about man made climate change is true, there is still nothing man can do to stop the planet from climate change, slow it down, maybe, stop it, no.
So instead of spending billions on trying to stop an event which we have no control over and which was occurring naturally long before man started getting the blame, we should be spending the money on surviving the change.
Just because I do not believe in man made climate change, it doesn’t mean I think we should do nothing. I think we should clean up the environment, plant more trees, stop logging old growth forests, as it makes no sense to dirty our own nest.
I just don’t think slugging people billions of dollars in the form of an ETS and re-distributing it around the globe is the answer. It will do nothing to help the environment. All it will do is make the cost of living more expensive, pollution will not reduce, as the polluters will keep polluting at the same levels and just pass the cost increase on to the consumers.

Is climate change a myth, no. Is man made climate change a myth yes, as the term indicates man is causing it, even though the climate was changing long before human activity.  That is the problem, all the predictions and arguments to prove man made climate change is real, ignores and discards all the scientific evidence proving the planet started warming hundreds of thousands of years ago and instead focuses on a 200 year period.

Steve says:

04:24pm | 24/12/09

Hi James,

Well, they don’t give absolute humidity, but I did do a graph of the mixing ratio derived from the specific humidity and the trend is also strongly downward. (BTW, I’m averaging over calendar years to smooth out the seasonal variation before doing the regression.) So absolute humidity is falling too, despite that the temperature has been rising.

In terms of greenhouse efficiency, the loss of water vapour from the atmosphere here, more than compensates for the gain in carbon dioxide, and this is the key location where the effect of “carbon pollution” is supposed to be most intense. The IPCC explain that this is the key altitude because any radiation that passes this level is statistically very unlikely to be absorbed at higher altitudes because of the reduced density.

The same fall in relative humidity is present at all lower altitudes, although it is less dramatic. There is therefore an increase in absolute humidity at sea level, but once again as the IPCC report explains that actually has a negative feedback effect because of the albedo of the increase in cloud. For water vapour to have a net positive feedback they need relative humidity to remain constant throughout the air column, and particularly at the “hot spot”. But the data shows that to be wrong.

Heather says:

04:42pm | 24/12/09

@ sad innit…. “How about instead of asking (demanding really) people to prove their side of things (not political sides, please) is right, you go off, for a month or two preferably, and find easily translated evidence that they are wrong. Your favourite links don’t count, you have to be able to show how and why the other side is wrong: from your in depth study of all relevant material.”

And there we have the nail on the head, right there. As I understand it, that is exactly what scientific method demands: hypothesis, then try to prove, via research and/or experimentation, the hypothesis wrong to see if it, in fact, is wrong. You are *supposed* to approach the hypothesis as a skeptic, in other words. If you get consistent results, then you can make an educated assumption that the hypothesis may be correct.

The difficulty with the MMCC (note the “Man Made” there) is that, apparently, science has been attempting to “prove it right”; any scientist who has genuinely attempted to prove the hypothesis (for such it still is) incorrect has been lambasted, and not necessarily for their science.

This is the trouble with “peer review”. On the one hand, peers are the ones who would be expected to understand the scientific theory and to be able to find the flaws in research and experiment (ie, they are also supposed to approach all such research as “skeptics”). However, “Experts agree” in this respect can also be read as “my buddies all say that…”

This is also the main difficulty with grants. Any scientist who accepts a politically-motivated grant stands to lose said grant should their results disagree with what the provider of the grant wants to see. This is not intended to be a hash on grants—clearly, science requires money. However, it is human nature to be worried about whether certain results may mean that you could lose your job/funding.

For the person above who provided a wikipedia link as a valid “source”... you’re kidding me, right?

AT says:

06:42pm | 24/12/09

Heather says:  05:42pm | 24/12/09

  “For the person above who provided a wikipedia link as a valid “source”... you’re kidding me, right?”

Hey, that was me! Whoo hoo!! Another trolling triumph!!!

See, that’s the problem with the merry-andrews who post here, like you, they quickly scan posts and just pick up on a particular phrase or idea or notion and without giving it a moment’s thought or considering the context or intent, they embark on an irrelevant personal crusade that has zero connection to the subject of the blog.

In your case you simply saw that it was a wiki link and delivered your Pavlovian response, assuming it was presented as a “source” and I reckon using it as an excuse to express a personal prejudice about wikipedia.

I’ve thoughtfully re-presented the link below. If you’d care to click on it, you should have no trouble determining if I was “kidding” or not;

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

Anthony says:  05:00pm | 24/12/09

“As for your last post, well that is probably the third biggest piece of drivel I have ever read”

Glad you noticed, comrade. I was returning the compliment, you FC*

*Acronym for Funny Clown. That’s acronym, not abbreviation.

Joe says:

09:00pm | 24/12/09

Many here say that you should do your own independent research. For the majority of us that means using the internet regardless of whether we are pro or anti ETS.
However if the plans of some go ahead we will soon have a censored internet with the very real possibility that there will only be one side of any story told. Who will tell the other side of the story then?

Steve says:

06:30pm | 25/12/09

@Humbug

I was not confused about anthropogenic water vapour. That’s trivial. I was talking water vapour as a feedback. The idea is that with warmer surface temperatures (whether natural or not) more water and ice will evaporate and sublime into the air because the warmer air is able to hold more water vapour.

It is modeled as a positive feedback in the General Circulation Models that the IPCC use on the understanding that this water vapour disperses throughout the troposphere and enhances the natural greenhouse effect.

The NOAA data shows the opposite. Namely that there has been a significant reduction in water vapour at the top of the troposphere. This would greatly diminish the natural greenhouse effect. Given the overlap in spectral ranges, and the relative absorption efficiency of carbon dioxide and water vapour, this reduced humidity should more than offset the forcing of the increased carbon dioxide.

I think you’ve misunderstood my criticism of their treatment of solar forcing too. I have read the many, many statements that they make that are dismissive of solar forcing, some of which are found in the sections to which you pointed us. They allow that solar forcing has been significant, but claim that it is not enough to account for all the warming that we have seen.

However, the solar forcing that they are talking about is limited to that which is due to changes in total radiation due to sunspots. They need to model for example the increased UV radiation due to sunspots and the way that modulates the ozone layer, and so on. They also need to allow that there is probably a trend in base radiation in keeping with patterns of past solar cycles. If so, there is enough solar forcing to account for all the warming that we have seen.

BTW, thanks for responding.

nullanulla says:

12:04pm | 26/12/09

Joe, you’re right on the money about the effect of the secret government censorship that is proposed for the Internet.

Emperor Krudd and Corporal Conroy have said that their filter will be used to block inappropriate material, and have called for further lists of things to be added to the secret banned list.

So what could be more inappropriate than people quoting climate information which reveals that the emperor has no clothes, and in fact is likely to freeze due to climate changes?

James says:

09:31pm | 26/12/09

Steve, water vapour has increased since the 80s (both the IPCC and NOAA say this), including in the upper layers of the Troposphere, your sample of data does not invalidate that assertion.  If you have studied science I don’t know why you think that what you are saying has any validity.

Solar activity is at an historic low, so if anything Solar forcing is likely to make global warming worse at the peak of the cycle.

If I were you I would put my energies into reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions as nothing you are saying appears to undermine the IPCC analysis.

Humbug says:

12:41pm | 27/12/09

Steve is at least a rare bird on The Punch, if not unique,  in presenting a contra-AGW view without personal aggro.

However, his arguments on humidity and solar variation would have had more force had he resisted the temptation to dress up his remarks with loaded terms: “dodgy science” and “glaring error” come to mind.  I remain unconvinced by his position that the IPCC is so far adrift in what are clearly important elements of climate work which has been painstakingly developed over the past 3 decades.

I was most interested to see James’ points in reply. Though I’ve not yet been able to look any further into the IPCC data so far, I am prepared to pursue Steve’s criticisms when time permits. But when I do so, it will not be by trying to pin down some hapless staffer at the Weather Bureau on the spot over the phone.

More generally, I remain deeply disappointed by the standard of Climate Change and Emission Scheme articles put forward by The Punch - matched only by disappointment with the resulting tone and approach taken in “Australias best conversation” by those arguing againt the AGW and ETS cases.

Both issues are bigger than any of us as individuals. They call for clear, simple presentation, not a conveyor belt of troll-fest and slagfest in reply. Those who like their arguments as “simple common sense” might serve their arguments better if they looked up weather v climate;  forecast v prediction v projection; government v governance, or donate v loan. 

As others have said, science is about seeking and testing knowledge: it’s about finding out. Anyone with some curiosity and patience has the chance to make a useful contribution much better here than by uncritically repeating either the sort of over-blown tosh peddled by The Telegraph, or eg the hair/kilometer/CO2 nonsense, now well past its use-by date here.

Lastly, the stolen email affair. Wildly overstated in my opinion, having read the damned things. Here’s the reaction of the IPCC
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/rkp-statement-4dec09.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/WGIstatement04122009.pdf

It is likely to be some time before I am able to return to any of these issues, but then, they certainly won’t be going away anytime soon either.

I won’t miss D’ohs endless head-bashing, Sherlock’s endless misleading, or the predictable sneers of Wayne Hutchins, Margaret Gray, Max, Cuppa and others of like kind. Someone like Steve is more likely to make a useful point than all of them put together. And I shall look forward to seeing any future contributions by Alteria, Persephone, IanSand, and the wonderful Pandora.

Fin tks.

Steve says:

01:50pm | 27/12/09

Hi James,

I am aware that the IPCC and NOAA claim that water vapour has increased. However, their own data disproves those claims. The database to which I linked is administered by the NOAA itself. It contains *global* data since 1948. It shows falling relative humidity at *all* altitudes *globally*. It shows falling specific humidity (and thus absolute humidity) at the top of the troposphere *globally*. The falls have been very steady. The regression slope barely changes if you choose to ignore the early data and start in the 80s.

I focused on the tropics because that is where the hot spot is meant to be. While you dismiss that as a “sample”, my reply is that it is representative of the whole globe, and the key sample that was needed to disprove the greenhouse hypothesis.

Solar forcing is *not* at an historic low. We are just at a low in the 22 year sunspot cycle. That cycle is however the most active that it has been since the little ice age. Also, there is much more to solar forcing that just sunspot variations. On days of peak sunspot activity total solar radiation is only 0.1% higher than on days of no sunspot activity. (If you want to check the data, go to http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/archive/index_ssa.html ).

My main criticism of the IPCC treatment of solar forcing is the failure to consider anything other than sunspot counts as affecting solar forcing.

Steve says:

02:14pm | 27/12/09

@Humbug

Thanks for your kind words. Sorry if using those loaded terms was unhelpful. They reflect my belief that many of the AGW proponents in the scientific community must be aware of these problems with their case. They are intelligent people after all. I think that they are misleading us intentionally, maybe with noble motives, but intentionally nevertheless.

John Leal says:

08:50am | 28/12/09

Older people (like myself) are becoming more sceptical of what causes climate change. We have more time to delve into scientific studies and tests than the younger working folk. There is more and more evidence that there is something dodgy going on with climate models and graphs drawn up by the so-called climate scientists, as substantiated by the “Climategate” issue, and the truth is being hidden from the general public. Mainstream media has shied away from this because it doesn’t sit well with the establishment. The US senate has called for an inquiry and some UK newspapers are beginning to report on the scandal, at last.

George S says:

09:29am | 28/12/09

The charter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is
“..to assess on a comprehensive,objective,open and transparent basis the scientific,technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE,its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.IPCC reports should be neutral in respect to policy—-”
This makes it a high-profile single-focus organisation whose existence depends on its own reports.In other words it has a vested interest in promoting claims that would guarantee its funding and justify its continual existence.

Colin says:

06:03am | 04/01/10

The current rise in Earth temperature cannot be explained solely by reference to historical patterns of climate change throughout the ages. Science, or to use a less emotive term, data collection, points clearly, concisely and emphatically to human endeavour as a major contributing factor - but not the only one as climate change is an extremely complex issue as scientists will readily admit.
Now as an individual you can choose to believe or disbelieve whatever you want and anyone can (as they have done in response to this piece) put forward all sorts of personal ‘theories’ of how climate change is but a figment of imagination and/or part of some conspiracy by the political elite to dupe them into doing something about what they regard as a perfectly ‘nautural’ process.
While most scientists rightly argue over degree, causality and predictions of consequences there is very little disharmony in the community to the notion that humankind has and will continue to have a profound effect on our world. At its worst this effect is neither ‘natural’ nor wanted, so the best way to preserve the planet and leave a positive legacy to our future generations is to accept our part in climate change and do something to both reduce its effects and if possible eliminate them.
Our ability to reason and change behaviour is the greatest asset we have as part of the animal kingdom on Earth. We should take that responsibility seriously, whatever age, class, country or politicaly persuasionn we come from. ‘Science’ will be vindicated but let’s not wait until it’s too late - we will not be forgiven by those that follow.

Steve says:

08:57am | 04/01/10

@Colin
“... data collection, points clearly, concisely and emphatically to human endeavour as a major contributing factor ...”

No, the data shows that we are in a warming trend, and it shows rising carbon dioxide levels, but it does not show causation. If anything, the data on falling humidity (see my comments above) shows that the warming is NOT due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

James says:

01:34pm | 04/01/10

Steve I’m sorry but your data simply doesn’t show a reduction in global atmospheric water content.  You said yourself you are aware of NOAA and the IPCC claims that water atmopheric water content is increasing maybe you should take it up with them, you are quite right to question their methods but be warned they have the same right to question yours.

With regards to solar forcing sun spots and solar irradience have a shown to correlate for the period good data was available i.e. around 40 years.  Suggesting you can determine solar irradience 200 years ago to a resolution that would account for the “little ice age” is a stretch especially coming from someone who demonstrates such sceptisism about physical models.  Solar irradience does not explain the clear warming trend in the last 40 years, if anything it is questionable as to whether its signal can be seen at all.

Steve once again I am sorry but you are hanging your hat on two points that have no basis.  Put plainly, what you are saying is does not match what the data shows.

Steve says:

04:07pm | 04/01/10

@James
I note that you posted the same text in the “You can’t Google your way out of climate change” thread. I’ll answer there.

Classic says:

11:14pm | 04/01/10

If we didn’t have the Internet, you wouldn’t be having this argument and climate change wouldn’t even be on the politcal agenda.  The ability for anyone to communicate quickly, anytime and anywhere has totally eradicated your ability and to communicate respnsibily - the evidence of which is in nearly all of the commetns above - fact free, rude, posturing, intimidating and deceitful rubbish from all of you..

Rob says:

04:04pm | 10/01/10

Of course we are sceptical (not deniers). We are old enough to remember scientists telling us that an ice age was on its way, and judging by the weather in the northern hemisphere they could be right. It doesn’t matter if it’s hot or cold, it’s still a sign of global warming according to Rudd / Wong / Garrett / Gore / Monbiot.

When Gore (and Rudd) started spruiking his message of doom, it sounded feasible, but not now. He’s been caught out so often in false statements it’s a wonder anyone still listens to him. In the meantime he has made a fortune, as have other proponents of global warming.

Having said that, we’ve been conned by politicians of all persuasions so many times we had to wake up sooner or later.

I was going to mention how our generation paid for “free” tertiary education, “free” everything else, and “decades of public spending on education, health, housing welfare and pensions” through our taxes…  but I won’t. 

As for George Monbiot, he’s been so busy preaching Al Gore’s philosophy, anyone who takes him seriously needs a wake-up call, themselves.

Checksum says:

08:01pm | 10/01/10

Well, Rob, you misremembered.

In the 70s, the media beat-up the earliest climate work, choosing to induldge in a fit of hysterics about the results: a likelihood that some areas would, paradoxically, be colder, while others warmed.

And current work shows the same thing, though it’s too early to say whether the Nothern Hemisphere cold-snap is a confirmation of that.

Do any of you sceptics ever bother to check your facts?

Rob says:

11:25am | 11/01/10

Well, Checksum,

No I didn’t misremember - you’ve got the wrong decade.  I was referring to the ‘50’s & 60’s - possibly before you were born. And I’m not alone.
Have a look at this website:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Meteorology-Weather-668/Ice-Age.htm and there are others.

The point I was trying to make is that meteorologists are not infallible. The make mistakes. They made them in the ‘50’s, but now they are not only making mistakes, people like Gore and Monbiot are condoning the mistakes in books and making a fortune at the same time.  Politicians like Rudd with his inflated ego jumps on his white horse and like Don Quixote tilts at windmills.

If you like facts go to: http://www.climate4you.com/

It should keep you busy for awhile, then you can come back and have another go at me. Sceptics have presented an alternative point of view to warmists. Surely it is in everyones interest to examine all the evidence even though you disagree with it?

Checksum says:

01:16pm | 11/01/10

Hmm? All Experts! Wowsers! What a hoot!

Oh, and the climate data site? Shows rising sea levels and global temperatures. Oh dear.

Next.

Get the point says:

01:25pm | 11/01/10

As it happens, Checksum’s right.

Rob says:

11:14pm | 11/01/10

Checksum, re; the climate4you website - Just a couple of short excerpts.

Sea level
“The 12-month global sea level change display significant variations over an aproximate 4 year period. These variations are superimposed on a general falling trend. Overall, since initiation of these satellite measurements, the 12-month sea level rise has decreased from about 4 mm/yr to about
3 mm/yr”.
That reads like a decrease, not an increase.

And where global temperatures are concerned:

“The lack of warming since 1998 has instead been ignored or defensively explained as being without significance. Some have simply chosen to refocus on other issues without direct relation to air temperature, such as, e.g., Arctic (not Antarctic) sea ice or retreating glaciers.”

Oh,dear, indeed.

Get the point says:

07:09am | 12/01/10

What part of “12-month sea level rise” are you finding hard to understand, Rob? Checksum was right - sea level is rising. It is only the rate at which it is rising that has slowed a little recently. Oh dear, indeed.

As for termperatures, we’ll see. 10 years is really not enough to tell anything, whichever way you’d like it to go.

Oh dear, Oh dear.

Rob says:

12:56pm | 12/01/10

Get the point: you almost got it.

I wasn’t suggesting that the sea level wasn’t rising. I was pointing out that the 12-month sea level rise has decreased from about 4 mm/yr to about 3 mm/yr. Which makes Al Gore’s fairy tale a little less likely.

There are too many anomalies for and against how much the sea will rise. It’s not good enough for the likes of Al Gore to say it will rise 2 meters and expect us to head for the hills. I’d like to see the pros and cons properly debated - preferably Al gore versus Lord Monckton, but that’s not likely. Gore doesn’t have the bottle. He’d head for the hills - again.

Most sceptics, I think, are prepared to change their minds given credible facts. So far credible facts have not been forthcoming.

The juries still out, but big cracks are beginning to show in the warmist camp.  Once the dust has settled, maybe we will get to the truth of the matter. The same applies to temperature rises.

You might enjoy reading this -

http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/01/climate-scientists-clash-over-apocalyptic-sea-level-rise-prediction/

And follow the ‘Times on line link’ 

It will give you something to beat me over the head with.
Please feel free to share with Checksum.
Cheers

davido says:

06:05pm | 12/01/10

Old farts are more:

- sceptical; and
- conservative.

And they really did have it good. All they had to do was chop down the trees and dig up the ground. Not bad work if you can get it.

Passing wind says:

10:06pm | 12/01/10

Davido
I never chopped down a tree, but I did dig a few holes from time to time to earn a living. Believe me, it wasn’t that easy.

You write as though you are still in school?
Don’t fret. Given time you will grow up to be an old fart, too. Just be patient - you’ll get there and you’ll change your point of view.

Rod says:

09:52am | 13/01/10

We know that 14,000 to 16,000 years ago one could walk from mainland Australia to Tasmania, or I think I can claim this is accepted by all experts.

It would be a challenging walk today. So if that massive change can occur in such a relatively short period…...of course we can have large changes in sea level, and obviously they can occur without human cause.

pandora says:

12:16pm | 16/04/10

The point I was trying to make is that meteorologists are not infallible. The make mistakes. They made them in the ‘50’s, but now they are not only making mistakes, people like Gore and Monbiot are condoning the mistakes in books and making a fortune at the same time.  Politicians like Rudd with his inflated ego jumps on his white horse and like Don Quixote tilts at windmills.

If you like facts go to?louis vuitton wallets
louis vuitton purses
pandora charms
pandora beads

Willy K says:

03:10pm | 16/04/10

The climate is and has always been changing!  Everyone knows this.

The issue is that man is NOT causing the Earth’s climate change.  We are wrecking the planet sure - we all know that - but we are not heating the planet up.  There is simply no evidence that MAN is doing it.

To actually believe that we could actually ‘cool the Earth’s temperature is so dumb it is beyond belief.

The issue is many people do not believe in AGW (man made global warming).

Everyone believes in climate change!  What a dumb article.  But I notice that the ETS and AGW nutters have started to change their terminology to ‘climate change’...  Just admit you were wrong and get over it.

bridal wardrobe says:

12:18pm | 26/05/10

in wedding dresses closing, Virtue Desktops will really add a lot bridesmaid dresses to your organization and beach wedding dresses timeliness, it doesn’t demand much in the way of system resources, and best of all, it’s completely free!

BurnsAlexandra19 says:

01:30pm | 07/07/10

I opine that to get the mortgage loans from creditors you must have a good motivation. However, one time I have received a bank loan, just because I was willing to buy a house.

MALONEKeisha27 says:

04:51am | 01/07/11

I felt frustrated just because of academic papers completing long ago. However, my good friend told me a stuff that assisted me a lot. The matter is that it can be possible to purchase essay. Thence, I have done that and was shocked just because results were the best. Now I can recommend everyone to do the same!

Mathis35JULIET says:

12:33pm | 27/08/11

The buy paper service could use your amazing knowledge for a future evolution, because people usually search for the papers for money of great quality.

WendiFaulkner28 says:

08:43am | 07/09/11

Thank you a lot for your really hot facts referring to this post. Could you assist to look for the buy thesis service or dissertation writing to purchase the thesis topic from?

Brendon says:

05:19pm | 19/09/11

This is very exciting, You are an excessively professional writer. I’ve signed up with your feed and turn into up for on the lookout for even more of your great article. Also, I’ve shared your blog in my social networks!

sheadedly says:

09:00am | 23/09/11

Hello! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with SEO? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good gains. If you know of any please share. Thank you! 
 
http://www.myindospace.com/blog/view_blog.php?BlogId=186849#viewdetails

gabjetu6 says:

06:02am | 14/10/11

I congratulate, it is simply excellent idea

Cannon27Kris says:

06:37am | 08/02/12

That’s hard to do lots of stuff at the same time! The essay writing service offer to buy an essay just about this good post* with the pupose to save your life time!

LuisaBriggs26 says:

06:42am | 03/04/12

Want to have customized term essays adopted to your style of writing and for affordable costs? It can be real to get everything you want to have at the essay service.

smubromrome says:

06:09pm | 11/05/12

xShgclJvky http://sac-guccipascher.info/ mRyqbaAvpw http://toryburchoutletshoess.info/ uHenzkCkdp http://juicycouturehandbagssoutlet.info/ mGrdheJipb http://isabelmarantsneakerssonline.info/ dQsbqrVxfn http://cheapisabelmarantsneakerss.info/ hOkqhoEhay sac homme louis vuitton xCiialKyjn tory burch shoes outlet sTrbduEear juicy couture outlets wIzypzSktm Home Page uIblluRciq isabel marant shoes