Hamilton's rejection of uncertainty, inherent in all good science, marks another step on his quest to overturn centuries of enlightenment.The only joke being that so many here have decided to join him down that sorry path. Quite sad really.

By the way Michael, do you have a skirt to match those pom poms?

"Hamilton's rejection of uncertainty"

What a shameless hypocrite. Hendrickx is certain we can keep burning carbon. Not much uncertainty there.

Sorry mate, but can you point out where I said that?

Oh, so you think we should stop taking the risk from burning more carbon. Nothing more to discuss then.

Aside from your tendency for fabrication

LOL

Hendrickx claim on this thread https://theconversation.edu.au/rich-nations-should-do-more-on-climate-say-chinese-8417

"Estimates of climate sensitivity from credible sources suggest that 2 degrees is all we are likely to get"

Source (when pressed) ."Schmittner, N.M. Urban, J.D. Shakun, N.M. Mahowald, P.U. Clark, P.J. Bartlein, A.C. Mix, and A. Rosell-Mele, "Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum", Science, vol. 334, pp. 1385-1388, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1203513";

Actual statement from paper: "we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K)"

so "2 is all we are likely to get" is actually 2.3 (15% more).

When pressed again quotes Forster, P. M. D. and Gregory, J. M. (2006) The climate sensitivity and its components diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget data. Journal Of Climate, 19 (1). pp. 39-52. ISSN 1520-0442

Actual statement from paper "This corresponds to a 1.0-4.1-K range for the equilibrium warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide" - so a midpoint of something over 3 is "around 2"

It is Mr hendricks that has the tendency to fabricate and misrepresent

Your comment is unsubstantiated nonsense.

I note your 'concern' for Science

No that would be Hamilton's ridiculous article.

Here is Marc dealing with uncertainty. Marc's claim
"Estimates of climate sensitivity from credible sources suggest that 2 degrees is all we are likely to get for 2x Atm CO2"
https://theconversation.edu.au/rich-nations-should-do-more-on-climate-say-chinese-8417#comment_55869

When pressed to support his claim he quoted two papers.
The first, Schmitter et al. (2011) suggested "a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7–2.6 K 66% probability)."
The second Forster, P. M. D. and Gregory, J. M. (2006) found "a 1.0–4.1-K range for the equilibrium warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide"

So for Marc uncertainty means always being able to take the lower figure.

Give me Clive's regard for the scientific method over Marc's any day.

Nice straw man Mike. About 2 degrees is near the middle of both estimates. And it does not gel with the climate catastrophe you are so fond of spruiking like a dodgy car salesman.

Towering intellect on display from the geotroll.

Marc is quite a phenomenon - dedicated, ubiquitous, indefatigable and increasingly strident.

When his arguments are shown to be fallacious he simply abandons the thread and moves onto another front. He attempts to cast doubt with shear volume of comment - credibility or evidence are not essential to this goal.

Mr Hendrickx is so numerate he claims 2 is in the middle of a range of 1.7 to 2.6 and is in the middle of a range of 1 to 4.1???

Tireless Repetitions Of Logical Lacunae of course

Both papers put paid to your climate catastrophism. You can lead a Kookite to water but you can't make it think.

Glad to see Mr Hendrickx now admits he was wrong on the facts in his previous statement

No, wait, he hasn't, He just Gish gallaops on to an Ad Hom

a typical Taciturn Response Of Limited Lucidity

Marc you have out-gunned me in responses to this article alone by 5 to 1 - thank you for the comparison but I'm simply not in your blogging league! Can we get back to the comment that originally prompted me to challenge you:

"As a non scientist it is clear that Clive has no regard for science and the scientific method." & "Hamilton, his acolyte Ashley and the Kookites are anti-science personified."

Both of these guys have reputations for academic excellence - one in economics and ethics and the other in physics and astronomy.

Can you substantiate your claims?

Mr Hendrickx is on record as completely dismissing uncertainty when it suits him by deliberately mis-quoting a figure from two papers to which he linked.

He claims they say the likely figure is "not more than 2 degrees" when the quoted a range of 1.7 to 2.6 and 1 to 4.1

Pot calling the kettle black?

The paper you initially quoted, Schmittner et al from 2012 gives a figure of 2.3K and uncertainty of (1.7–2.6 K 66% probability). But it is based on a Last Glacial Maximum to interglacial estimate of just 2.6°C. So if this paper is correct, then even your claim of 2°C max warming means substantial climatic changes.

This was made clear by the author Schmittner
"Very small changes in temperature cause huge changes in certain regions, so even if we get a smaller temperature rise than we expected, the knock-on effects would still be severe."

What the Schmittner paper also rules out are low equilibrium climate sensitivity values which in your tradition of only seeing uncertainty in one direction, you completely omit to mention.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Schmittner-climate-sensitivity-goood-bad-ugly.html

Of course you do not mention all the other research that supports the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report which summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

We'll crack that half century yet, there's got to be a few more Chardy sippers out there.

I'm Mark, he's Mike :) Though Mark and Mike agree on many things

The direct results of the papers you quote (and your false claims based on them) are here

Hendrickx claim on this thread https://theconversation.edu.au/rich-nations-should-do-more-on-climate-say-chinese-8417

"Estimates of climate sensitivity from credible sources suggest that 2 degrees is all we are likely to get"

Source (when pressed) ."Schmittner, N.M. Urban, J.D. Shakun, N.M. Mahowald, P.U. Clark, P.J. Bartlein, A.C. Mix, and A. Rosell-Mele, "Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum", Science, vol. 334, pp. 1385-1388, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1203513";;

Actual statement from paper: "we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K)"

so "2 is all we are likely to get" is actually 2.3 (15% more).

When pressed again quotes Forster, P. M. D. and Gregory, J. M. (2006) The climate sensitivity and its components diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget data. Journal Of Climate, 19 (1). pp. 39-52. ISSN 1520-0442

Actual statement from paper "This corresponds to a 1.0-4.1-K range for the equilibrium warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide" - so a midpoint of something over 3 is "around 2"

So now we know that 3 deg C/CO2 doubling central estimate causes catastrophe and 2.3 deg C/CO2 doubling central estimate is hardly significant. Who said Hendrickx was useless?

Larry, Curly and Moe congratulating themselves.

@ John

Yours is about the most sensible reply on this matter I've seen for some time.

I too have long noted (and lamented) the polarised nature of discussion on this topic.

You show, through your depiction of military tactics, that the subject is no longer about facts but about capturing the battleground.

I gained an Environmental Science degree eons ago, and from a 'science' perspective, I am disenchanted with the stance taken by the likes of Clive Hamilton. For them, it's not about the arrangement of their argument to be as compelling to a majority of the broad unwashed. Rather, it's (as you say) to blow the others away.

Long ago I was greatly influenced by Thomas Kuhn's excellent text 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'.

Kuhn articulated that scientific 'revolutions' often followed paradigm change. For him, paradigm change was when a competing theoretical proposition from the practice of science could be shown as more compelling than that of another proposition from the practice of science.

My reading of Kuhn is that paradigm change is about the practice of science not the aggrandisement of influence.

Your depiction of battleground highlights all the things wrong about how our society is addressing the theoretical underpinnings on the issue of global warming.

- - -

Personally, both sides have valid arguments. Given this, the Precautionary Principle means we should act until the argument is (finally) decided.

Cheers

I notice the author is engaged in public ethics ,so I pose this question ----I recently discovered data that looked like there had been no air temperatures at the 14 tidal stations situated around Australia. I asked the BOM to produce a trend line to see if my inclination was correct. They refused on two grounds---that the 20 years was too short a period and that the air temperature equipment was not up to the climate change standard.

continued from above- (NO RISE IN TEMPERATURE TREND left out in comment) ----You would have thought that equipment installed in 1991 would be of a standard to record temperatures accurately.Yet the climate commission used the 20 years of data of the sea levels to scare the population into accepting the carbon tax legislation .I realise that the scientists who edited the climate commissions paper were not the same people who refused to graph the data that showed that the air temperature trend had not risen for 20 years. It seems that it is alright to quote sea level rise over 20 years , but refuse to make a trend line of the air temperature when it is politically not time to do so. Was it ethical to withold data in this manner ?

Lunatic conspiracy theories and amateurish misinterpretations of isolated fragments of data notwithstanding, can anyone who is both sane and honest deny that the vast majority of those who are best qualified in climate science substantially agree?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Taxpayers expect their research dollars to be used in a acceptable fashion and when the data shows that 20 years of air temperature shows no rising trend , it should be scientifically honest to include those results in the public domain. When the same tidal stations are used to promote increased sea level rise in a government paid document and the period of data was not suitable for temperatures , but suitable for government employed scientists ,one has to doubt the intentions of the authors

Good one. 'Cargo cult' was the name given to the belief that Pacific Islanders had about material goods dropping from the sky, a result of WW2 air-drops. Seems to me that describes the belief system of those who insist that perpetual growth is possible in a finite system. To paraphrase Kenneth Boulding, you must be a fool or an economist.
As for uncertainty in science, nothing is proven. But until we come up with a better theory, e=mc2 and increasing co2 in the atmosphere leads to higher temperatures. If you've got a better theory, let's hear it.

No one is denying that co2 will lead to higher temperatures. The question is how high? At This stage observations are at the lower end of projections. The end that justifies a measured response, rather than the mass panic preferred by Hamilton and his ilk.

Which 'scientists' would that be Trevor? Obviously the ones who have realised that the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Science, the australian Academy, CSIRO, BoM, etc. must be either deluded or incompetent. Glad we have you to save us from them.

Your physics in unimpressive Richard Koser. E for a particle of rest mass m and velocity v is

mc^2(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2 + U

Let's hope your understanding of radiative physics is better.

Have you tucked you shirt into your underpants?

"James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the date relating smoking to helath problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

"In the absence of positive feedback the cumulative effect of man's emission cannot be measured"

But there are positive feedbacks - very strong ones - that is what is so worrying.

Oh dear, ageism on the Conversation. Still it's better than being called a denier, which represents the supremum of your debating abilities.

Sorry you couldn't understand the equation. I would have made it easier for you but this editor doesn't recognise LaTeX.

Grant. You do not need to be old to be irrelevant. Richard made some grammatical errors as well - I am surprised you missed them.

I'm more interested in physics. Having read your tiresome but tachyon like responses over many threads, that's clearly a subject you have little knowledge of.

Grant - I have only read 3 of your comments and you still have not managed anything on topic. My first impression does not seem that far from the mark.

Oh you mean your underpants impression. No physics knowledge then . Quelle surprise.

"Their ... kid's schol fees"

Maybe they don't waste money on private school fees.

oh that old chestnut - what has climate change got to do with lung cancer?

Lindzen is an atmospheric pysicist not a medical researcher - same old story attack the man not the ball

"Lindzen"

Reminds me of the Internet access salesman who lied to my face and then when I proved he did, he moved right along and kept expecting me to believe him.

Lindzen has no interest in the truth. He just argues for the sake of arguing. That's what he likes doing.

Thanks for the ratings - I didn't realise it was so controversial! Would love comments.. I'm genuinely interested to know what people think.

I for one agree, James. But that is not going to help your ratings. These derived from the reptilian part of the brain.

A measured response involves dealing with the variability and extremes we are aware of by mitigating against them with practical measures such as dams, levees etc. Sources of energy a long term issue and best addressed by a shift to nuclear as older inefficient plants reach the end of their economic lives.

Part of Clive's problem stems from his hatred of humanity and disregard for human achievement.

James,
I would be disappointed if i were you. If you can't score over 30 reds then you have been either drinking too much cappuccino or eating too many salads or riding a bike or haven't had a vasectomy or been drinking too much chardonnay.

Trevor, I am disappointed with your lack of belief.
Any hint of anything apart from full obeisance to the religion's fundamental beliefs will bring forth the ire of the priests' of climate change.
Complete excommunication will follow. All government grants will be terminated. All academic tenure will be denied. All submissions to peer review journals will be shredded.
Doctrinal purity must be preserved.

So we are only being democratic when we agree with you Trevor. That is so 1984.

There's some irony in mentioning "democracy" in a piece by Clive Hamilton.

Grown-ups learn to manage their paranoia

LOL - not as much irony as the menion of "accuracy" or "evidence" in relation to ANY post by Mr Hendrickx

No Trevor - we just wish you'd be skeptical in its true sense rather than the pseudo-skepticism you and others (like Mr Hendickx) practice

Here is what Lawrence Torcello has to say about true skepticism. Not the pesudo skepicism and making a virtue out of doubt that you practice.
(Lawrence Torcello is a prominent ethicist and holder of the Ezra A Hale Chair in Applied Ethics at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York)
Torcello is particularly concerned with what he amusingly — and, again, rightly — calls “pseudoskepticism.” This is the abuse of the word skepticism to describe the activity engaged in by people who deny climate change, evolution, HIV causing AIDS, or who maintain that vaccines cause autism (all, except partially for the issue of evolution, are issues that are not simply academic or educational in nature, but have major import for the welfare of our society). Torcello points out that actual skepticism is about positive inquiry and critical thinking, as well as proportioning one’s beliefs to the available evidence (not to mention being willing to alter those beliefs if and when the evidence changes significantly). Pseudoskepticism, on the contrary, makes a virtue of doubt per se, regardless of other considerations, and is therefore irrational.
he also says
(1) Ethical obligations of inquiry extend to every voting citizen insofar as citizens are bound together as a political body;
(2) It is morally condemnable to put forward unwarranted public assertions contrary to scientific consensus when such consensus is decisive for public policy and legislation;
(3) It is imperative upon educators, journalists, politicians and all those with greater access to the public forum to condemn, factually and ethically, pseudoskeptical assertions without equivocation.
I see no evidence of positive inquiry or critical thinking from you Trevor - just the constant regurgitation of a predisposed view reinforced by confirmation bias and (apparently) deliberate ignorance about the science

"the pseudo-skepticism you and others (like Mr Hendickx) practice"

Hendrickx is a non-skeptic. He'll believe anything that says climate sensitivity is low such as "If I am right, then correct processing of the data used in Forest 2006 would lead to the conclusion that equilibrium climate sensitivity (to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is close to 1°C"

And this is a bizarre representation of what's actually possible. We don't need 'regulation' to achieve 'revolutionary changes to our global energy system'. Well, not more regulation anyway. Fewer subsidies to coal, oil and gas companies would be a good start. If we got rid of those, we wouldn't need subsidies for wind, solar, wave, geo-thermal. Take a look at energy demand curves over the last few years: even in Australia, demand has gone down thanks to rooftop solar.
Cleaning up a wind farm is a lot easier and cheaper than repairing the damage from a meltdown. Oh what, they don't happen? Humans have built about 560 nuclear reactors, successfully decommissioned about 80 and six have gone ka-boom. That's a great track record. In contrast, most of Victoria is off-limits to wind power because someone's cow might get a nose-bleed but coal companies can pollute rivers under a 100 year deal signed in 1961.

I thought the sound of a meltdown might be a hiss and a fizz, followed by glug-glug-glug.

There's a list of Top 5 Worst Nuclear Disasters at http://news.discovery.com/tech/top-five-nuclear-disasters.html.
1. Chernobyl, Soviet Union 26 April 1986
2. Kyshtym, Soviet Union 29 Sept 1957
3. Windscale, UK 10 October 1957
4. Three Mile Island, US 28 March 1979
5. Tokaimura, Japan 30 Sept 1999

Fukushima would be added to make a list of Top 6 Worst Nuclear Disasters, but I don't know where it would be placed in this list.

In terms of direct deaths I think wind farms are more deadly.

You can always rely on a proportion of people taking the 'tepid' approach aka fence sitting.

I would happily get excited about climate change if someone could produce a definite plan of what they expect the future energy production sector to look like.

Rows and rows of windmills, thermal solar plants, geothermal, biofuels, carbon sequestration? Everyone has their pet scheme, but for every pet scheme someone suggests, there is always someone who comes along and says it is totally impractical.

How long is just saying "carbon tax" going to suffice before we realize that if it reduces emissions at all (doubtful), it will only remove some low-hanging fruit and then just end up rationing solely on the basis of income.

Sean, even if AGW didn't exist, there are still plenty of good reasons for migrating to clean energy. The side-effects of coalmining and the use of coal to produce electricity cause a great deal of community ill-health, detrimental environmental effects and excessive use of scarce resources like water and productive farming land.

AGW is just another very important reason to switch over from polluting fossil fuels. In the long run it will also prove to be cheaper for consumers.

Finally, while some people may have a preference for a particular form of clean energy, most would be happy to see all practical forms deployed.

By the way, the only people who claim renewables are impractical are those with vested interests in the status quo, or have a philosophical reason for opposing reality. Climate change denialists are no different to creationists and anti-vaxers, science is an anathema to them.

I wonder what the evidence for all this ill-health is. The mining and use of coal has been cleaned up decades ago.

It hasn't yet been explained to this realist just how the breeze and sun beams are going to supply the energy currently produced by hydrocarbons.

Sundance what's your data source for these claimed emissions reductions in the US please?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

According to the USA EPA "CO2 emissions in the United States are projected to grow by about 1.5% between 2005 and 2020" and looking at the data from the EPA it's fairly clear recent reductions were largely associated with economic slowdown

On the plus side US emissions per capita are slowly trending down BUT are around 3 x the emissions per capita of China

http://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=usa+co2+emissions#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:CHN&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

I don't agree with a lot of what Clive has to say either (especially about Nordhaus) but I suggest that AGW and our response to it is a global energy issue AND a moral and social (not to mention) economic one.

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf

Mark - There are 44Gt of CO2 equivalent GHGs being emitted by poor and developing countries around the world according the scientists in Durban who released this information and then were quickly censored by the IPCC. I find that those claiming moral and social injustices are deniers for never acknowledging such facts and I assume they deny such facts so that they don't have to face the illogic behind blaming only industrialized western society when non-Western society is as guilty or more guilty of contributing to the problem.

To me the moral/social aspects are unneeded baggage used by those looking to inject a political bent into solutions or trying to promote blame as a means of promoting some biased and misguided perception of social injustice. Who is more destructive to the planet, Western society where families are having one or two kids and reducing CO2 or the poor countries with a population explosions that contribute 44Gt/year of CO2 equivalent GHGs? To me this only distracts from progress to a real solution. Look at the new research out on the disaster that biofuels is. The UN incentivizes poor countries which suffer water and food scarcity to stop growing food and use scarce water and land resources to grow crops for fuel so that Western countries can buy offsets. Is that moral? I'm sure Western countries feel better morally about about buying offsets, while in fact what has been done is not moral at all, and has led to deforestation, deaths and starvation in poor countries. I am led by my research to the conclusion that a scientific/technological solution is the best way forward and at the moment, cheap solar PV looks to be the best hope in the near future as this is something that can be rolled out on a huge scale in poor countries that can't afford expensive grid infrastructure. Anyway thanks for your comment and and I hope that if you do not agree at least you know some of the reasoning behind my views. Best to you and yours.

Mark I found this at Daily Kos article with the key point being "Sin taxes do not decrease pollution – deploying and perfecting clean energy tech so that it is affordable and reliable does." It took me 10 times the amount of words to express similar sentiments. :-)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/25/1113595/-Global-Warming-and-Carbon-Credits

Sundance

If the figures for the US are truue, that great. However, my understanding is that there is Cap & Trade in the US. Not nationally, but there is a scheme operating among 8 states in the North East, and doesn't California also have its own scheme?

Glenn.
It is largely due to the shale gas boom and the closure of old coal fired power stations.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3aa19200-a4eb-11e1-b421-00144feabdc0.html#axzz21gFTY0MM

"Gas is fast becoming the new fuel of choice for the US power sector: in the past 12 months, coal generation has slumped by 19 per cent while gas generation has increased by 38 per cent, according to US Department of Energy figures."

A tax on carbon intensive electricity generation makes renewable energy technologies more economically competitive.

So when you quote a paper from Forster, P. M. D. and Gregory, J. M. (2006) who found "a 1.0–4.1-K range for the equilibrium warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide" why do you discount the possibility of the 4.1K end of the range?

When so many other papers also report low probabilities for the higher end scenarios, and that mid range gets progressively lower and lower...yes I consider 4 degrees a very low probability event.

Why do you discount the lower end?

What "so many other papers"?

And why did you misrepresent the range by a single figure (that was NOT the mid point) and now choose to focus on the lower end?

Other, of course, than to misrepresent the data and be a pesudo-skeptic??

Gerard, Generalisations might make you feel superior but most of the people I know who have made the effort to go to low energy lightbulbs and put solar panels on the roof are retirees and pensioners who can see their energy costs continuing to rise and recognise saving energy and/or producing their own makes for good economics. Few of them have the wherewithal to go on overseas trips.

Mr Donaldson

I am afraid you are guilty of generalising. Pensioners don't have the cash to install a solar system, especially if they are renters. The main market for solar panel installations is professional, 2 income families who own their own home.

My point is illustrated by a relative who installed a 1.5 KW system and proudly announced he was making 1/2 of his home's energy usage. I explained that his new 20KwHr ducted heating system used around 20 times the solar panel system output per winter's day. Then I added that the energy to fly his family to NSW and WA on their recent holidays would take 20 years to generate on the solar installation. He changed the subject.

Stick to the facts.

Gerard Dean

Gerard Dean: "Pensioners don't have the cash to install a solar system, ..." Interesting assertion - and contrary to the facts.

Ahhh Mr Boxall

We meet again, and again you are master of the factual argument, and again you provide no facts.

Firstly, approximately 1/3 of pensioners don't own their own home, so they won't put solar panels on the roof. About half of the homeowners are too poor to install the system, leaving 1/3 of pensioners in the market.

Again, the main market for solar panel systems are middle class, 2 income families who are driven by the desire to do something for the environment and have the spare cash to do so.

Stick to the facts.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

"the new iPad you are buying next week."

iPads use about 4 watts of power. Just sticking to the facts.

Gerard, who are you? Is Gerard Dean even your real name?
Your behaviour is that of a teenage boy. You login via a Yahoo email account.
There's an OurSay account in that name. http://w.oursay.org/user/gerard-dean-1 The views expressed are similar to those expressed here.
There's a mention on http://www.mrmudd.com.au/testimonials.php of "Gerard Dean, Builder (Glen Iris)". That couldn't be you, you're a "Managing Director". Of course you are.

Gerard Leo Dean
Born 9 December 1955 Barham NSW
Grew up in the Wimmera. Worked on the farm from aged 4 until I escaped.
Worked in the mines and on the drilling rigs way out west.
Qualified as electronic technician and worked 10 years for the Navy and Army.
Started own business, Versatile Technology P/L
Design, manufacture and export over 90% of production of high technology measurement systems to major, international companies in the USA, Europe, Middle East and China.
EVERY beer and cola can lid manufactured in Europe is tested on Versatile Technology systems, made right here in Melbourne. 66% of US lids, the same.
Company Mission Statement: TOTAL WAR

I don't hide Mr Boxall

Gerard JetA1 Dean
Glen Iris

"An iPad is made from"

No kidding. And how much GHG emissions are caused in the production of one compared with the tonnes per annum of GHGs that the Australian person using an iPad is responsible for in their gas heating/overseas holidays that you like to mention? It's ridiculous to lump iPads in with those other forms of energy consumption with the implication that they are anywhere near comparable.

Gerard Dean:
"Managing Director (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)". Would a genuine Managing Director need to log in via a Yahoo email account?
"Company Mission Statement: TOTAL WAR". Would a genuine Managing Director speak so of his company?
"Gerard JetA1 Dean". Would an adult speak so of himself?
Has a sullen teenager stolen the identity of Gerard Dean?
Has "Gerard Dean" often given sources for his assertions? Has he ever?
Is the child who has assumed the identity of "Gerard Dean" merely saying whatever it hopes will provoke?
Would that behaviour qualify as trolling?

Chris O'Neill: "It's ridiculous to ..."
Are you feeding a troll? http://tinyurl.com/cy96n5p

Mr Boxall

I cannot understand why you don't believe me.

I am the founder and Managing Director of Versatile Technology P/L. Versatile Technology designs and manufacturers high technology measurement systems, 90% of which are exported to major companies worldwide, including the company that makes most of the satellites spinning through space. Our Mission Statement printed on the wall of Versatile Technology P/L is "TOTAL WAR"

I wish I were a sullen teenager and not 56 years old, but I have no control over time.

Sometimes I name myself "Gerard 'The Troll' Dean" because many people on this website claim that I am a troll. I don't actually know what a troll is.

Sometimes I name myselft "Gerard 'JetA1' Dean" because it is the name of the hydrocarbon fuel used in Airbus and Boeing aircraft. I raise this issue often to highlight the fact that many of us fly (I am totally sick of it) for work, business, academic conferences and many others choose to fly for holidays.

If you are ever in Melbourne, you are welcome to visit Versatile Technology P/L to see our mission statement and our products and talk to the nutbags that design and make them. You can also goodle Versatile Technology.

Thank you

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

Mr O'Neill

You are correct. iPads use a miniscule amount of power and resources from the earth. I totally agree that gas heating and overseas holidays use gargantuan amounts of power and resources in comparison.

My point about the construction of the iPad is that it relies on the scientific-industrial complex we have wrought. We cannot have super advanced, low power devices without this complex system.

On the issue of overseas holidays, I often ask people on this site to ethically justify how they can choose to fly overseas for holidays, and at the same time, claim they live sustainably. I contend that the two are mutually exclusive with current technology.

In fact, I have posed this question to Professor Hamilton in view that his special interest is "ethics of climate change". Thus far, he has not responded.

Thank you again.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris
Thank you

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

Ms Birney

I don't mind you calling me a hypocritical stone dead, forked tongue, clueless rockape but please, in future don't smear my mother's or our farmer's reputation.

The hardworking women and men on our farms battle floods, fire, drought, the high A$ and the bank manager to grow the food that you eat. What little pollution they create is more than compensated by the good they do by sustaining millions of people around the world.

Thank you

Gerard "Hypocritical, stone dead, forked tongue, clueless Rockape" Dean
Glen Iris

From that self contradictory article; "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

Hardly unprecedented!

Glacier Melting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

...... phhhttt, snort, chuckle.... LOL!!!!!

Must be some sort of climate denier code. I guess they get the code book with the tin foil hat.

"Abbott announces an equiry into the science of AGW"
"Abbott wins the election calls for review of funding for BOM and CSIRO..."

He could call the enquiry "The Inquisition". Cardinal Pell could chair it.
Perhaps he could get the climate science deniers from "The Galileo Society" to be witnesses.

The Queensland LNP have already passed a motion outlawing the teaching of climate science in Queensland schools.
The next step is follow the republicans of North Carolina who have banned sea-level rise.

I never said that the sun does not affect climate change. I am well aware that in the past the sun was the trigger for rapid warming due to increasing greenhouse gases. What I said was that the sun is not responsible for the recent warming (there is a negative correlation between increasing temperatures and decreasing solar irradiance).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Changes_in_mean_solar_irradiance_and_mean_global_surface_temperature_on_Earth_since_the_year_1978.png
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Berthold Klein: "If the sun can warm the earth as it rotates by 20 to 50 degrees every 12 hours"

Actually, it rotates close to 180 degrees in 12 hours.

We are not debating the sun’s attribution to planetary warming but the unprecedented rapidity of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the biosphere and beyond.

Annual global emissions for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes of CO2 (highest preferred estimate) is 0.26 Gt/year and A/CO2 emissions are 35 Gt/year.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

The majority of mass extinctions are a result of carbon perturbations – not the sun’s warming.

Why not ask a solar expert and cease exploiting the 2001/2003 publications of deceased marine scientists who can’t respond to your cherry picking and gobbledygook?:

“I have always maintained, however, that any temperature changes caused by variations in solar activity are small compared to the global warming that we are already experiencing, and very small compared to what will happen if we continue to burn fossil fuel at the present rate:”

(Professor Nigel Weiss – Mathematical Astrophysics, University of Cambridge; Fellow of Clare College; FRS. Research Interests: Solar and Stellar Magnetic Fields, Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, Nonlinear Dynamics.)

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

Trying to refute published peer reviewed conclusions by links to blogs that are not peer reviewed science nor are based on it, especially to someone who denies the reality of the Greenhouse Effetc (as the reference Trevor supplies does), only betrays the fact that Trevor Ellice is a pseudo-skeptic who wishes to deny the reality of climate science and AGW rather than a genuine skeptic who questions real data and seeks to improve his understanding of the issue

Do you mean peer- reviewed results or conclusions.
S0 peer review has become an imprimatur rather than a nihil obstat in you CAGW religion?

More cyncism Phillip?

When a pseudo-skeptic practices cycnicism and condemns acceptance as "faith" (when faith and cynicism are actually the same thing - just opposite sides of the coin), they are really saying you're good if you agree with them and you're bad if you don't. People who assume that all belief is blind faith are incapable of understanding how a person can have firm beleif and yet be open to considering new information that may appear at first to contradict that belief.

Apparently that is beyond you as a cynic masquerading as a pseudo-skeptic (making a virtue of doubt but not refering to evidence).

But, to educate you and disabuse you of your nigil obstat concerns

A standard question on the checklist of most peer reviewed journals is the following

"Are the Conclusions supported by the results of the study?"

So, I mean both - where the peer review concludes that the conclusions are supported by the results.

Those papers tha have conclusions not supported by the results are either weeded out before publication by the peer review process or successfully challenged by subsequent papers. Of course the process is not perfect. But it's a hell of a lot more robust that the blogosphere that pseudo-skeptics like Mr Ellice are relying on

well just because a paper is peer reviewed doesn't mean it is:
- good science
- useful in our understanding of natural world
- useful
- right headed
- will stand the test of time

Actually the current state of the literature on volcanic emissions would suggest the opposite.

I did a google and was shocked. There is was human emissions trump volcanoes and great sux to Plimer. It all seems reactionary to Plimers statements - a couple of assumptions for land volcanoes and a few more about the lack of submarine relevance and some rubbish about a natura since of lava at the sea floor (what?). Nothing about the methodlgy used.

Truth is we haven't a clue, but really with all those seamounts and kilometers of MOR how can anybody keep a straight face of this and say man's emissions dwarf the natural.

Actually Trevor when a paper is peer reviewed in a reputable journal it means all those things. At least with a high likelihood (test of time of course matters).

It is certainly far more reliable than unreferenced blogs you appear to use as a source.

here's a summary from a reputable science based magazine (based on the published literature)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

But most telling of all is logic. IF volcanoes (some mysterious yet to be discovered undersea one apparently) are responsible for the unprecendented rate of increase of CO2 - how coe they SUDDENLY started emitting but yet have remaained totally undetected???

"Truth is we haven't a clue...."

If we haven't a clue, why did you try to hoodwink us into believing Wishart's/Casey's rubbish on volcanoes?

Plimer claims volcanoes are the cause of rising CO2, after trying to convince everybody that CO2 is an unimportant trace gas and doesn’t change climate anyway.

On a 60 Minutes chat in 2006, Plimer stated that "volcanoes that leak out carbon dioxide have caused global warming in the past", a statement that starkly contrasts with his later claims that CO2 levels have no effect on climate.

Have you no shame, no principles at all?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer

Plimer's strategy is to deny everything. Deny:

that the CO2 rise is anthropogenic,

that CO2 causes warming,

that it is warming,

that warming might be harmful,

that we can reduce CO2 emissions,

that we still have time for mitigation.

For non-skeptics like Trevor Ellice, Plimer's blanket denial does not affect his credibility.

I was an avid reader and subscibed to new scientist for years - until it became captured by the climate caper and I cancelled my subscription in protest. I couldn't believe (and still don't) the apologist climate crap they print. It fails the helicopter test and is just rubbish, pure and simple in my opinion.

to add clarification to you post for those with the wool puled over their eyes

that the CO2 rise is anthropogenic, - thats right the isotopic evidence is actually not there

that CO2 causes warming - only a little, swamped by other factors

that it is warming,- not since 1998 it aint - ayways so what the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles all the time

that warming might be harmful - why would it be harmful - didn't do the Romans, Vikings in Greenland and those in the middle ages any harm - cold is bad for man

that we can reduce CO2 emissions, - not much renewables will never provide base load and why bother anyway

that we still have time for mitigation. - mitigate what?

hey at last some issues to debate and debunk - thanks

I suggest you study the actual science in future before you post any further demonstrating your abysmal ignorance on the topic.

Do you SERIOUSLY think you have some profound insight on this that the world's scientists have missed????

Your logic is completely flawed.

The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.

Consider a swimming pool. It has recycling filter that recycles 100% of the water over time. But if I add just 1% of the total volume in the time that volume is re-cycled the pool will overflow.

Read this (if you are genuine in willing to understand as opposed to a denialist in disguise)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

you know this comment really cuts the heart of the matter.

'The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.'

the judaeo christian view that we are ex nature and different - it is a modern manifestation of original sin. Nature does not know the difference between a molecule of co2 emitted by us or a wilderbeast with bad breath. The Carbon cycle goes on and sequests carbon dioxide from wherever it can lay it's hands on it. That is why, geologically speaking, the atmosphere currently is so depleted in CO2 - the corals, algae and formaminfera have sequested it away in their skeletons which is now limestone. Think how much co2 went into the building of the great barrier reef - not the corals living now but their forebares apon whose skeletons the curent generation now grow.

Consider your analogy re the pool water. What if the evaporation rate in the pool equals or exceeds the water addtion - no problem.

The isotopic evidence is interesting. The so called smoking gun of less heavy carbon from fossil fuels (or the other way round can't remember) has been debunked, turns out the natural turnover from the carbon cycle cannot be distinguished from the anthropogenic - so much for that one - do some research off the mainstream and you wil be surprised.

As for knowing more that the world scientific community, well I am not the only scientist with these conclusions. The mainstream science on this is issue is corrupted by the vast sums of money available to those who tow the line on Climate Change. It's called big Climate.

Please in future arguments don't just post a paper with it's flawed dogma. read the science and debate the points as per you understanding of the issues and try to point out how my conclusions are incorrect - you will find that very difficult because the current paradigm cannot stand close scrutiny

Simplistic as this may seem, the arguments remind me of the old story of the asteroid approaching Earth but no one believes until they see it with their own eyes. Trouble is when you can see it, its already too late to do anything about it.

We can sit here posturing about an issue that just might cause minimal harm or just might bring about the end of civilisation. But we have to ask the question.

Two options are available to us and you have to ask which as a betting person would you choose.

We do something and face potential temporary ridicule and a bit of financial pain later on.

Or we do nothing and leave our children potential chaos and possibly the end of this civilisation.

Its a question of the odds. A good gambler limits himself/herself to what they can afford to lose.

Do you like good coffee Trevor? I don't mean the crap farmed on large broad plain plantations but the quality stuff, high grown on volcanic slopes? Coffeeis one of several commercially important crops that is highly vulnerable to small changes in climate - particularly temperature. In addition to the plant biology issues it is also at risk from reduced pollination. This is one large commercial crop at risk, and which is already showing the effects. There is substantial literature on risk to crops - so much so that I roll my eyes every time I hear the "CO2 is plant food line" or comments like yours that express a belief thwt a little warming will be just fine. It is a view that as someone who claims to be a scientist who have no rational basis for holding, not in the face of the extensive evidence across a broad range of non-climate related fields in addition to the climate science itself.

You do your credibility harm with your approach to this discussion.

Mr Dean,

This sort of repetition of concern trolling on a 3rd order issue does you no credit.

A moments research would reveal the following

http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?page=view&nr=249&type=1000&menu=126

"The President of the General Assembly is launching a system-wide initiative to offset the carbon footprint from UN staff participation in Rio +20. The Special Unit for South-South Cooperation has been tasked to facilitate this initiative by building partnerships and leveraging the services of its flagship exchange platform - South-South Global Assets and Technology Exchange (SS-GATE) - to offset the estimated 3,600 tonnes of CO2 emissions from the participation (including travel) of approximately 1,400 UN staff in Rio +20"

Mark Harrigan: "This sort of repetition of concern trolling on a 3rd order issue does you no credit."
The fact that you waste resources responding is all the credit he wants. Do not feed the troll.

Philip,

I am delighted to hear you are relieved :)

Or have I (just possibly) mis-interpreted your feigned sense of humour as passive-aggressive cyncisim??

Healthy skepticism includes refusing to condemn something as false unless it can be shown to be false. Someone with healthy skepticism may doubt something if it has not been proven to be true, but he would not condemn it as false unless he obtained verifiable evidence that it is false.

Cynicism is refusing to believe anything is true that one does not already believe, regardless of evidence. A cynic assumes that everyone outside of a trusted circle of sources is a liar. Since cynics must begin with some basis of truth, they are simply unchangeable: unwilling to accept new truths or to shed old convictions. Thus, a cynic is someone who is locked into his belief set and is unwilling to believe anything else. On the other hand, a person with blind faith believes everything from his trusted set of leaders and ignores all other sources of truth and logic. So cynicism is essentially the same thing as blind faith.

Tad cynical from you perchance??

David - I disagree with a lot of things Mr Dean says. And I disagree with the fact that he continually repeats them in the manner he does. But I see no purpose in the kinds of personal identity attacks you are having with him. He is who he is. He holds views I suspect both of us find disagreeable as well as being ill-informed.

I understand how sometime in the heat of debate with someone who uses troll like tactics, ad homs and gish gallop "logic" that it gets the hackles up of course

I also do appreciate your concern about "feeding the trolls". It's a tough one becase, left alone, pseduo-skeptic trolls tend to try and dominate the posts with mis-representation and half truths. Getting the balance right between countering those mis-representations and not feeding their ego becuase someone has responded is not a balance I profess to always get right (maybe not even mostly). But I do try :)

Dr Harrigan

Thank you for springing to my defence, especially in view that you do not agree with my views. So thank you.

Now, back to the facts.

I am afraid that you have missed my point. The UN website you referred me to details the carbon offsets purchased (about US$80K) by the UN to offset the visit to Rio+20 by their 1,400 attendees.

Firstly, it only constitutes about 3% of the 50,000 attendees, but more importantly, it does nothing to address the real problem which is sustainable use of the earth's resouces. After all, the Rio+20 was a conference on SUSTAINABILITY after all.

No amount of tree planting or "carbon offsets" will put the 8 million litres of JetA1 hydro carbon fuel the 4 Boeing Jumbo jets burnt flying the UN attendees back into the earth.

You may call me a pseudo-skeptic, egotistical, unbalanced troll that is trying to mis-represent and provide half truths, but trying to tell me that the UN paying $80K to plant 1000 trees will offset 8 million litres of Jet A1 fuel, is a sad joke.

The pity is, Old Mother Earth isn't laughing at your joke.

Gerard Dean
Glen Iris

Mr Dean

I do not think I have missed your point at all, with respect. But I do think you have a poor grasp of the matter and the "facts" as you call them

First you framed your question "How should the 50,000 attendees ethically justify their choice to use thousands of tonnes of non renewable JetA1fuel to fly to the conference in order to call for mankind to stop using JetA1 Fuel?" in a way that is clearly not looking for an answer but is designed to cast asperions and be cynical.

The fact is that a very large component of the global economy and global society and governance (which requires people to meet to discuss issues and how to address them) is dependent on fossil fuel use. Unconstrained use, without steps taken to reduce the excess CO2 we release into the atmosphere in excess of the natural cycle to cope, is reulting in warming of the planet which, if it continues unabated, will make civilisation as we know it untenable within 50 to 100 years.

Given that it is almost impossible to eliminate one's own "carbon footprint" given the state of our technological deployment and social structures, it is possible to still have a beneficial effect by directings one's resources toward activities that reduce the burden elsewhere. That's what "offsets" are all about

So it would appear you do not understand the notion of carbon offsets (or are being deliberately disingenuous). They are NOT about putting things back into the ground. You invest in things which reduce emissions, and this offsets the amount of emission produced by your own activities. If done properly those activities have a zero net burden on the planet (assuming what you invest in would not have happened otherwise)

Options include investment in developing and deploying alternative energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, methane recapture) , helping businesses upgrade their old equipment so it produces less emissions, planting trees etc

So, to deal with the "Facts" it IS possible to produce an outcome where the RIO conference had no net negatove CO2 burden.

Some have criticized carbon offsets for various reasons, but one fact remains:

Creating quality carbon offsets is better than doing nothing.

As to the rest of the delegates, I do not know what they did but perhpas you should read my reply to Mr Dowling and ask yourself whether or not you are just being cynical and opposed to being healthily skeptical.

Given that the UN themselves took what action they could to reduce or eilimate the atmospheric CO2 burden and that there were many sessions about this it is not unreasonable to assume to think this might have been extended to all delegates?

Guess what - two minutes of google research discovered this was the case?

http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/pdf/UN%20goes%20PaperSmart.pdf

"To help offset air travel emissions of accredited delegates, the Brazilian Government has
created, in partnership with Caixa Econômica Federal and UNDP Brazil, a digital tool that
will allows participants to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from air travel and
purchase certified emission reductions to compensate for them."

You see, Mr Dean, a REAL skeptic with genuine concern for exploring these issues with integrity would take the trouble to investigate the facts BEFORE casting ill informed aspersions. Unfortunately a pseudo-skeptic or cynic - who is not interested in the facts but just promulgating and vaildating their pre-disposed world view - does not.

To be frank, for an intelligent person you should be aware of all this and I fear you are being deliberately disinegnous and theerfore demonstrating destructive cynicism rather than genuine concern and healthy skepticism about what to do about the problem of AGW.

So, the question I urge you to consider, in good faith - is which are you?

A genuine skeptic who refuses to condemn something as false unless it can be shown to be false?

Someone with healthy skepticism who may doubt something if it has not been proven to be true, but would not condemn it as false unless he obtained verifiable evidence that it is false?

A genuine skeptic who is about positive inquiry and critical thinking, as well as proportioning one’s beliefs to the available evidence (not to mention being willing to alter those beliefs if and when the evidence changes significantly)

OR
a Cynic who refuses to believe anything is true that one does not already believe, regardless of evidence and a Pseudo-skeptic who makes a virtue of doubt, per se, regardless of other considerations, and is therefore irrational?

Dr Harrigan

I am afraid that Old Mother Earth doesn't accept "Certified Emission Reduction" certificates. They are nothing more than "Carbon Indulgences" created by rich politicians and doctors to justify their own use of non renewable resources while lecturing the rest of us to stop using these same resources.

The simple, incontrovertible fact is that 50,000 pious people used over 40 million litres of non renewable JetA1 fuel to fly to the United Nations Rio+20 Sustainability Conference. While in Rio they consumed 2800 tonnes of food and drink and used billions of watts of coal fired electricity to yell at the rest of us.

And what did the Rio+20 talkfest do for Rio's poor living in the brutal fevelas? Absolutely nothing except rub their noses in the fact they can never escape on a Jumbo and live the high energy lifestyle of the rich, pompous 50,000 westerners who claim they live sustainably.

In future, don't tell me what I am, skeptic or otherwise or what I should be, just argue the facts.

You do the maths on Jumbo fuel usage and prove I am wrong Doctor.

Thank you

Gerard JetA1 Dean
Glen Iris

And one more thing Doctor Harrigan

Don't even think that bio fuels or 'renewables' will fly you and your rich mates to Europe on holidays. They cannot and will not for the forseeable future. Perhaps by 2080, maybe 2050 but not by 2013. Until then you will be sucking old mother earth dry. No amount of Carbon Indulgences will wipe away that ecological sin.

But there is more to my argument than JetA1 fuel. We can move the discussion to 440C Stainless Steel, a most wonderful steel alloy. I get a real kick out of specifying its use on components I design. The modern medical profession would be in big trouble without 440C stainless steel.

Thank you

Gerard 440C Dean
Glen Iris

"Gerard", before anyone else wastes time responding to your trolls, they'd be well advised to wait for you to substantiate your ridiculous assertions. Consideration of your motives and integrity might also be in order.

My cynicism derives from the use of committees which are so often set up not to do anything but to put in place a series of processes and meetings that are designed to ensure that complete obfuscation is achieved.

That's spam madam!

Spiro Vlachos: "Another bit of nonsense from an extremist Greens candidate."
Spiro; if you want to be taken seriously, then detail your objections. Petulant disagreement does little but damage your credibility

I object with the author being given space on this site.

Petulance is a government that gives such extremists a voice.

This site was formed as a forum for critical thinkers but alas your silly one liners fail the sniff test. Goodbye.

Forum for critical thinkers, or a love-in for adherents to this extremist doctrine? The author feigns the importance of a democracy, yet has advocated is suspension, and the democracy wants nothing to do with him. Shirley Birney, David Boxall, Clive Hamilton, you are all fringe to put it lightly. You have nothing positive to offer us.

Ian Douglas, would you be so kind as to point me to the precise comment where someone has

(a) RESPECTFULLY questioned the "orthodoxy" (as you put it) - which means they do not use words like "kookite" or liken some one to the three stooges ar accus thosee who disagree with them of being religious or other similar commentaary
(b) Based their questioning on some well referenced evidence (as opposed to fanciful blogs based on no real science) and
(c) Received a large quota of red marks (i.e. readers regarded their comments as unconstructive)?

Thanks :)

Hi Mark

Not sure why you have an issue with the word 'orthodoxy'?

orthodoxy |ˈɔːθədɒksi|
noun ( pl. orthodoxies ) [ mass noun ]
1 authorized or generally accepted theory,

Perhaps you would like me to reference that? :) I would have thought given how strong you have been defending AGW that would consider it an orthodoxy. In any case, I have to say even some of your responses could be a tad nicer.

For example you wrote: "I suggest you study the actual science in future before you post any further demonstrating your abysmal ignorance on the topic."

Is it really necessary to call someone ignorant just because they disagree with you?

Hi Ian,

1) I feel you are being disingenous. Using the word "orthodoxy" is clearly value laden. I am quite well aware what it means - perhaps you are not entirely? It has the meaning of "in accordance with the teaching and direction of an absolute extrinsic authority." - something I do not think is applicable here as much as you seem to imply.

2) I note you have comprehensively failed to point to a specific post that both respectfully challenges the scientific concensus (lets avoid the value laden "orthodoxy" shall we?) and has some sort of evidentiary basis and is marked down.

3) As for "being a tad nicer" - perhaps - but I think you will not that my comments become more robust only AFTER the relevant poster clearly demonstrates neither respect nor an evidenciary basis for their comments. people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. With respect to the specific example of my response you quote - You will note I resorted to this stronger language only AFTER I had dealt with the same false and mis-representative evidence free statements on numerous occasions. So, I was NOT calling them ignorant because they disagreed with me - I was stating that their posts continued to demonstrate abysmal ignorance because opn the content of their posts they were clearly ignorant of the facts and the evidence.

Ian AGW is neither a theory nor is it authorised. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of what a scientific theory is?

For want of a better description AGW is shorthand for the generally accepted interpretation of what the wieght of scientific evidence tells us in relation to recent climate data and measured CO2 levels. I note you choose to ignore the value laden definition of what orthodocy means.

And I am not offering an "excuse" as you put it. I am pointing out that, on the evidence of the example you gave I pointed out ignorance where it was demonstrated. I do not accept your characterisation. Nor your right to judge my level of maturity.

we keep waiting for the 'weight of evidence' to be articulated. The coincidence of rising CO2 levels and temp is (by the way) proof of nothing more than a coincidence.

"This is clearly spam."

25 pages of it. Do the editors have a position on this?

Global warming reminds me of another scientific consensus, which even when presented with evidence, was difficult for scientists to give up since they had invested so much of their time:

http://www.mikeepstein.com/path/nrays.html