"Look at my red herring!"

You are asking for a prediction into the future based upon no specifics nor considerations. Andy and Tim could be both correct, depending upon what context they are answering in.

It is also completely irrelevant to what is actually happening now and what will continue to happen if we don't stop greenhouse gas emissions.

BUT I THOUGHT THE SCIENCE WAS SETTLED? If such a fundamental question cannot be answered which question can? And by the way the question was directed at Chubby. Not you.

"If such a fundamental question cannot be answered"

And which meaning for the question was being used in the different circumstances? Does "temperatures to decline" mean to decline from what they are now or for them to start declining from whatever peak they reach?

"I THOUGHT THE SCIENCE WAS SETTLED"

The only thing that's not settled here is the meaning of the question. By the way, the science is settled enough. We don't need to know the science to three decimal places for it to be settled enough.

If the alarmist science is settled 'enough' why did all these scientists write a letter to the American House of Reps and Senate to say it isn't?

Have a read....

Quote "It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge."

Link...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/an_open_letter_to_the_us_congress.pdf

A factor of five hundred is not three decimal places or am missing something?

If there is an answer it is for Chubby to give it and he has had an opportunity and failed, he can of course rectify the situation any time he chooses.

"If the alarmist science is settled 'enough' why did all these scientists write a letter to the American House of Reps and Senate to say it isn't?"

Sorry, not interested in appeal to supposed authority (number 28 in the list of dishonest tricks of argument: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html ), especially when it includes cranks such as S. Fred Singer.

It is a red herring and isn't worth answering to be quite honest.

You don't really want or need an answer to this question, because it doesn't matter what he answers, and to some extents you prefer if he doesn't answer. If he does answer one way or the other, you will use that as evidence of some sort of claim for "scientists don't know". If he sides with any particular side of the argument you will use the counter side to argue that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The reality is that this question is for an actual climate scientist, not a science advisor, nor other science advisors. So instead ask someone like Curt Stager who wrote a book on this particular topic of greenhouse gas cycles and impacts. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9378991-deep-future

Aside from the appeal to authority logical fallacy you have just used, you have also used a fallacy fallacy. Science is not decided by politicians, nor is it decided with letters to congress, nor is it decided by a group of scientists.

Science is decided by evidence. The evidence is in and it shows that climate change is occurring and that man made greenhouse gases are driving change. END OF STORY.

So I ask again who is right Flannery or Pitman and how come the Chief Scientist in his own words does not have a clue? PS no arguing from authority.

And here's one for you Wade - an analysis of one climate change denialist petition.

Hot off the press

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/is-the-word-of-one-climate-scientist-worth-that-of-420-spice-girls-90361

I only asked the question.....no need to get all hysterical!

Why do these scientists not share the consensus promoted by you lot?

For all of them to have no credibility as you all suggested sounds to me like you only want to here what you believe and the truth is irrelevant?

I know that climate change is real. It's been happening since the beginning. I know that man has also had an effect on climate.

As for it being all bad with no good.....that is what's hyperbowl.

And he answer is ?

"especially when it includes cranks such as S. Fred Singer"

But you regard ad hom abuse as acceptable tho?

Sigh, it's always the same. In the comments the topic of the article gets ignored and a slanging match ensues.

Corrigenda

And the answer to the question put to Ian Chubb is?

Just for clarification because the break in continuity of dialogue.

Why don't you send it to a denialist then because that isn't me?

How many times have I said climate change is real. It has always been real even before man. How many times have I said I man has had an effect on climate.

Yet how many times do the simply foul alarmists accuse me of being some Christian creationist or denialist just because I have enough brains to realise that change brings good and bad results for biodiversity.

The new breed of internet climate alarmists are nothing but the old apocalyptic street corner preachers from yesterday.

Mad as cats.....

John

Without having the exact text of both the questions aked and the answers given, how can any one answer your question directly.

Here is mmy answer from what I know. If we magically stopped emissions of CO2 right now, temperatures would continue to rise for some decades while the temperature rise in the ocean catches up with what has happened in the atmosphere and the radiative forcing imposed by the CO2 we have already released is balanced by a final temperature rise. Decades before temperatures stop rising. And that assumes that melt of the Arctic sea ice, methane release from permafrost etc don't continue to cause more warming even after we have stopped emitting CO2. I suspect this is the question Andy was responding to, or at least what he intended.

How long after that before temperatures actually start to fall again in anymeaningful way. Certainly centuries to millenia. This is driven by how long natural processes take to draw CO2 out of the atmosphere to reverse things. The primary mechanism that will do this is the Atmospheric Weathering cycle which operates on time scales of millenia and longer. This was probably the question Tim was answering.

Have you read carefully over the questions and answers for both of them to make sure you understand EXACTLY what they were saying? Or did you just hear the too different figures, not read too carefully what they said because you were so eager to have some ammunition to backup your views? Have you considered that perhaps if they were answering questions in the general media, maybe they simplified their statements for general consumption?

If you want to know what the scientists know or don't know John, go and read the scientific literature. That is where they speak with real clarity and precision.

Sigh, there is no ad hom. S. Fred Singer is a crank: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/S._Fred_Singer . The answer to the question "why did all these scientists write a letter" is because there is no shortage of politically motivated cranks like S. Fred Singer who will put their names to such a letter. Being a scientist does not prevent someone from being a crank.

What brand of sunglasses does he prefer? Are they biodegradable? Is he left-handed or right-handed?
Just some suggestions.

Now answer the question who is right Flannery or Pitman and why does our Chief Scientist not have a clue?

Chris O'Neill would think the following are cranks,

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

"temperatures would continue to rise for some decades while the temperature rise in the ocean catches up with what has happened in the atmosphere and the radiative forcing imposed by the CO2 we have already released is balanced by a final temperature rise."

Rubbish, the dominate systems that govern energy flows are not known today. The simple diurnal aspect of climate immediately defeats your statement as the oceans heat the atmosphere. Oceans do not catch up with atmosphere, you have it upside down.

Ya want some reinforcement?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658?v=s5

BUT I THOUGHT THE SCIENCE WAS SETTLED? If two economists disagreed by this amount they would be laughed out of court but it seems that the warmians can make the most absurd claims to cause panic and generate more funds not to mention self importance but when they get caught out we are told science does not work that way. I understand th 21/2 degree tipping point was a political agreement to prevent this sort of thing happening. The point of no return was being asserted as temperature rises ranging from one and a half to six degrees someone noticed this and thought everyone should sing from the same hymn sheet so now we have two and a half degrees.

And the answer is?

Look to try and put this in terms you might understand. One area where the science is settled and which I have more than a passing familiarity is exterior ballistics. One of the largest and best financed military forces in the world is the US Army. Some years ago I was comparing the US Army and Marines sniper manuals. They used the same specialist ammunition but different rifles. There was a huge difference in the ballistic tables in the two manuals regarding down range trajectories which could not be explained by the different rifles (the only relevant difference was barrel length.) Calculation of trajectories was pretty much settled by the end of the C19. First step to consult other tables both paper and computer programs. Trivial differences from the Marines, big difference from Army. Next step out to the range, the labors of research, and empirical results prove Marines right and Army wrong. QED. Army had goofed. Hardly possible but it happened and this also shows the stupidity of arguing from authority even when the head honcho admits he does not have a clue.
Contrast this with a conversation I had with some rev heads some years ago, the challenged me to tell them the speed of a Bathurst contestant if they gave me engine revs, gear box ratios and diff ratios. I accepted and gave them an exact figure to a decimal place and immediately came a living legend. Trouble was it was a figure I pulled out of the air which seemed reasonable for a high speed car on a racetrack.

The parallels are obvious but if you cannot see them I would be happy to explain in words of less than four syllables.

Which leads me to my question and the answer is???

If that is not a contradiction I can only suggest a basic English course.

Look to try and put this in terms you might understand. One area where the science is settled and which I have more than a passing familiarity is exterior ballistics. One of the largest and best financed military forces in the world is the US Army. Some years ago I was comparing the US Army and Marines sniper manuals. They used the same specialist ammunition but different rifles. There was a huge difference in the ballistic tables in the two manuals regarding down range trajectories which could not be explained by the different rifles (the only relevant difference was barrel length.) Calculation of trajectories was pretty much settled by the end of the C19. First step to consult other tables both paper and computer programs. Trivial differences from the Marines, big difference from Army. Next step out to the range, the labors of research, and empirical results prove Marines right and Army wrong. QED. Army had goofed. Hardly possible but it happened and this also shows the stupidity of arguing from authority even when the head honcho admits he does not have a clue.
Contrast this with a conversation I had with some rev heads some years ago, the challenged me to tell them the speed of a Bathurst contestant if they gave me engine revs, gear box ratios and diff ratios. I accepted and gave them an exact figure to a decimal place and immediately came a living legend. Trouble was it was a figure I pulled out of the air which seemed reasonable for a high speed car on a racetrack.

Which leads me to my question and the answer is??? And why could our Chief Scientist only reply quote "I do not have a clue, not a clue" I note that neither Flannery nor Pitman have attempted to rationalize the discrepancy. Anyway I' m off skiing on Monday best falls in years after one of the coldest winters on record. Wasn't the snow supposed to disappear two years ago. and have we not got Monbiot predicting the Arctic ice will disappear this decade?

And the answer is? You have done the work or claim to be capable so give me the answer, although I had not realized that Pitman was actually saying that temperatures would continue to rise for twenty years then stay constant for nine hundred and twenty and then decline to fulfill Flannery's predictions.

And the answer is? It should be at your fingertips.

I don't think it is major, just somewhat silly. Although, there is an increasing tendency in Anglo countries, including Australia, to take an authoritarian approach and this title I see as just one more, small, teeny even, step in the direction towards creating a real post of Chief Scientist.

This won't come tomorrow, and if the libertarian mindset keeps spreading it might not come at all, but so long as we keep ratcheting towards the everything in the state, everything for the state and nothing outside the state attitude we see increasingly evidenced in the progressive and green mindset there is an increasing likelihood that it will happen.

After all, they already have the title in place.....

Should it be 'mildly important scientist' perhaps?

"the chief scientist also represents Australian scientists at national and international levels."

And here we reach a problem. There is no mechanism by which he can provide that representation.

Proff Chubb can only ever represent his employers, the Government, as a civil servant, or any organisation or person who appoints him to do so. He cannot represent anyone who was denied involvement in his selection.

Australian scientists are not a monolithic block, and no one person can claim to represent anyone who has not asked them to do so.

The government have neither authority nor ability to pick and choose who represents scientists, or IT engineers, or beach volleyball players, nor can it, or should it, ever have it.

If Prof Chubb has ever presented himself as representing Australian scientists then he has misrepresented himself. I was trained as a scientist, although I have never practised as one, and he most certainly doesn't represent me.

I am not suggesting there is anything malicious in this, merely a category error.

But, but, who would send me emails then? :-)

Nigerians...

"The scientific method and logical thinking patterns should be compulsory."

I agree, if you had been educated in the rigors of the scientific method you would not believe the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming was, in FACT, a theory.

The supposed greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide all have absorption spectra in which the major peak occurs where the incoming sunshine exceeds the outgoing Earth’s infrared. For CO2, the incoming spectral radiance from the Sun at the absorption peak, 4.368 microns, is 3.4 times greater than the outgoing spectral radiance from the Earth. For methane, quoted by the IPCC as being a dangerous greenhouse gas, the incoming spectral radiance from the Sun at the absorption peak, 3.26 microns, is 85 times greater than the outgoing spectral radiance from the Earth.

Thus if back-radiation of the Earth’s infrared can cause warming of its surface then back-radiation of the incoming Sun’s infrared will cause cooling of the Earth. Furthermore, as the Sun is the source of the heat energy in the first place, the resulting colder Earth’s surface will generate a much lower outgoing radiation and thus a lower back-radiation. Overall, a colder Earth from the so called greenhouse effect, not a hotter Earth.

Taken together with the muddled definition of the Terrestrial Greenhouse Effect, as described in my posting at #29 above, and the Greenhouse House Gas Global Warming theory is shown to be a nonsense. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 23% in the past 50 years but this has not resulted in a colder Earth, which would be the logical outcome of the theory, so the theory is unambiguously falsified.

No go on Tim, tell me that because 97% of climate scientists believe the hypotheses the scientific method has been satisfied.

Oh, of course, the scientists in this movie are just ignorant of the scientific method, right?

http://www.theboywhocriedwarming.com/watch-now.php

Smarter Nigerians
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/from-nigeria-with-love-20120717-228bi.html
Anecdotally they are qualifying their marks by asking early on if they believe in AGW and the effectiveness of the Green_ALP carbon tax.
95% success rate I read in one forum.

"Taken together with the muddled definition of the Terrestrial Greenhouse Effect, as described in my posting at #29 above"

"...my posting at #29 above" ?????

Poor old Marcus. He is not the sharpest tool in the toolshed. He cannot even write his own denialist crap. He has had to copy and paste some other denier's comment from another site. I doubt he even understands what he posted ... He just saw it had some number thingies in it and thought it looked impressive.

Same forum you get your science from is my guess.

Markus, I actually have been educated in the scientific method. I have two science degrees from reputable Aussie universities, have a dozen published peer reviewed papers and 3 currently accepted and available online (advanced print). Your ad hominem on me is rather pathetic considering this weight of evidence of my science qualifications.

Next point, your dismissal of 150 years of research with supposition that is unsupported by any actual measurements or data is not very convincing. It is even less convincing considering the 150 years worth of research data that has shown the exact opposite of what you have claimed. I would suggest that you are the one lacking in scientific method training.

Ahhh, but Tim, Markus is armed with something far more powerful than evidence or the knowledge of the scientific method. Markus has belief, and thus, ironically proves the point of Ian Chubb's article.

Tim, your qualifications make you a expert in sorting sea shells into different piles, no? Whereas in my very first semester I was informed that to argue from authority is no argument at all.

150 years of errors doesn't make greenhouse suppositions truth, considering Baron Fourier got it right 186 years ago his theory certainly predates Arrhenius stupid pondering about some stupid imaginary roof holding heat into a planetary atmosphere.

"Seems a bit rich when the link below is to a video funded by the hearland Institute - hardly a reliable source of climate (or tobacco) information."

I have read about conspiracy nutters like you Grendelus. In Germany, 1935, anti-semitists were running around spreading rumors that there was a Jewish conspiracy. Your comment about tobacco ironically proves the point of my comment.

Let's not go through ad hominem accusations of plagiarism, Mickey. You only have to google my name. BTW, how come you enter into science conversations and never mention anything about the science?

First of all, Godwin's.

Second, conspiracy theory? Where?

Heartland and tobacco? No, they are a well known advocate for tobacco companies and freely admit it.

If you want to claim them as a reliable source you'd better backlit with something other than accusations that I am some sort of a conspiracy theorist.

Talk about your lame ad homs (and right after you'd accused Mike Hansen of the same. Tsk tsk).

Err, Grendelus, from the producers;

"A special Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the movie. Independently funded, this indie documentary is NOT associated with any corporate sponsorship or funding whatsoever. That's why every little bit helps, because without your continued support this film would not be possible and its critical message lost".

You seem to be fixated on Heartland, tabacoo, conspiracies,no?

Well the movie was produced by a group called "The global Warming Initiative" who have previously stated "The Global Warming Initiative owes a great deal of gratitude to the Heartland Institute for their continual assistance in our project."

"The project" they are describing is the film.

In the credits, at 1:25:15, when it says "and special thanks to our friends at:"

And the very first place listed is "The Heartland Institute" you think it is then "conspiracy theory" if I assume some linkages?

I'm sorry, but what relevance is the source of funding or affiliations of the people involved got to do with anything?

The validity of an argument is unaffected by who makes it, or who finances it.

I have not seen the video in question, and I may or may not see it, but its arguments either stand or fall on their own merits, not on whether it was financed by Heartland, or anyone else. To claim otherwise is an irrational smear, and a waste of everyone's time.

Maybe you should read the rest of my comment. I have watched the video and it was a slick presentation of old arguments with no new evidence offered. It was, purely and simply, a propaganda piece and is not representative ofthe state of the scientific knowledge on the subject of climate change. Heartland's assistance in the project does not add credibility there however, so that certainly is pertinent.

Sorry, but Heartlands involvement is completely irrelevant.

No new evidence? So what? If it is meant to be an overview then there is no reason why it should present anything new.

As I said, it stands or falls on the basis of the information it contains, all other criticisms are irrelevant or an attempt to smear on spurious grounds.

The only valid criticism in the above comment was: "not representative ofthe state of the scientific knowledge on the subject of climate change"

If you want to expand or justify that remark it will contribute to the discussion, all the rest is opinion for which you offer no justification, assertion and smear.

Here's the Tyndall experiment:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15093234

Accepting Tyndall doesn't mean one should disregard wind, isolation, planetary harmonics, cosmic rays, gravity and pressure, PDO, ENSO etc etc as larger climate drivers that absolutely swamp the absorption and re radiation of down welling short wave radiation, no?

But what a nice red herring for Black to post as he rushes for the exit door.

Yes - maybe it's space fairies and pixie dust. Or maybe - just maybe - it is the experimentally proven greenhouse effect as a result of the empirically measured increases in carbon dioxide.

BTW I'm not Black (whoever that is).

Really? The only models that hit it for me are the blonde ones.

Assuming that Tim's degrees makes authority is just that, assumption and you what that does to both you and me, eh Patrick.

Markus

Excellent comments. Excellent Red Tick Score means you are making people think,with the exception of Mr Hansen.

I especially like his factual arguments such as, "Poor Marcus, not the sharpest tool in the shed."

It is hard to believe that Australia's Chief Scientist had a hand in writing the drivel.

Gerard Dean

Thanks, Chris.

The article's contends that "it would be good if people accepted that ‘highly likely’ doesn’t mean ‘we don’t really know’" is off-base.

Sorry. Where climate change is concerned, we don't really "know" in the sense of absolute 100% certitude what its causes are. We may never know.

Lack of certitude is, however, no justification for inaction. If we wait for incontrovertible evidence before doing anything, millions of lives will affected. Climate change IS happening. Millions of people are being affected by it RIGHT NOW.

Life is about weighing up probabilities, measuring risks and then taking action. Sound public policy, and private initiative, is based on what we BELIEVE is the best course of action to take, based on the available evidence.

"Lack of certitude is, however, no justification for inaction"

Yes it is.

If you don't know what is really happening, or why it's happening, then you are unlikely to be able to formulate policy that controls it. Policy can be sound only in as much as the information it is based upon is certain.

If a hypothesis continually fails in its forecasts then policy based on that hypothesis is unlikely to be sound.

Where is this 100% certainty you speak of? We act in the face of uncertainty everyday, particularly in economic policy, health policy, education policy. There is no, absolutely no probability=1 field where policy is made. Once upon a time people thought it absolutely certain on the evidence that all swans were white. More recently doctors endorsed Camel cigarettes on what was framed as a "don't really know" premiss.

Of course there are times when we must make policy and act in the face of less than 100% certainty: it is when the risk and payoffs of inaction outweigh the risks and payoffs of action in the direction indicated by the evidence. Read David Hume: it might drive this notion of "certainty" out of your head, but I wouldn't bet on it.

So you aren't dissuaded from engaging in risky behaviours unless you are certain that something bad will happen? I assume then that you have never bought insurance in your life...

Sigh,

Would you care to read what I actually wrote and follow on from that?

Where did I mention 100% certainty? If you are going to enter into dispute with me, and I will certainly welcome discussion, please don't start by attributing to me claims that I didn't make and that I regard as absurd.

The greater the certainty then the greater the chance of developing sound policy, the less the certainty then the less the chance of developing workable policy. I don't see anything controversial in that statement.

In fact, the claim that "Lack of certitude is, however, no justification for inaction" is the controversial claim, and the one that needs justification. It is the precise opposite of the evidence based policy I, and I would hope you, support.

Peter, please read what I wrote. Your conclusion is unwarranted, an example of reductio ad absurdum aimed at an opinion I didn't express.

I wasn't pointing out any contradictions in your positions, just asking whether or not you practise what you preach. You suggested a lack of certitude is justification for inaction. Isn't it then logical to enquire about circumstances in which you personally do act out of certainty?
If your point is that we should not act unless out of certainty, then isn't that the anti-thesis of philosophical scepticism?

I did not claim you were pointing out a contradiction in my opinion.

Why are people putting words in my mouth?

"You suggested a lack of certitude is justification for inaction."

I did not.

I disagreed with the flat statement "Lack of certitude is, however, no justification for inaction", which is not the same as you are claiming I said.

I simply regard it as being more appropriate to act informed than to act in ignorance, which is what the original statement advocates. I see nothing controversial about this position, and I am astonished that there are people who think it reasonable to advocate creating policy and acting on the basis of belief, or faith, rather than on evidence.

The whole thrust of this article is about the importance of knowledge rather than belief.

You are merely flaming a strawman- scientists don't have certainty about something, therefore they are uninformed. A good guess is that everyone is ignorant as to the true nature of reality, to varying degrees.
Accordingly, I see your attack on uncertainty as either disingenuous or intellectually flawed. Sorry to be blunt.

Sorry Patrick, but your claim here is absurd. I can only assume that you are trying to be provocative, but it isn't going to work. I have no desire to get into a slanging match, and won't rise to the bait.

"as climate change requires actions".

You better start praying for that action Lennert, considering accepted peer reviewed climate science literature says;

"CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

That's the nail on the head Mathew. Co2 forcing didn't sit well with conservation so Arrhenius came up with GHG back radiation.

By its length.

Lennert, a bit of assumption and assertion there.

Chris Mooney, in his comments about them putting the effort into supporting mainstream science, demonstrates he doesn’t understand what science is.

As he said of skeptics, many of whom he acknowledged to be “scientific and mathematical sophisticates” :

“It’s funny how this high-level intellectual firepower is always used in service of debunking—rather than affirming or improving—mainstream science.”

As I pointed out in my response at Counting Cats, whether you affirm or debunk mainstream science is an outcome, not an aim. For this, and other statements, his position is absurd in its entirety.

As to your assertion that “climate change requires actions that fit quite well with values of the left but are anathema to the right”, I put forward an alternative: There is a standard set of actions and policies advocated by progressives, supported by their Marxist and Fascist fellow travellers, which they seem to seek to implement regardless of the problem set. Acceptance of the AGW hypothesis allows them to advocate those policies, and so they are inclined to support it, regardless of the extent to which real world observations fail to cooperate with the increasingly foolish looking forecasts.

Given that those policies, where implemented, have a history of failure orders of magnitude more spectacular than even James Hansen’s and Tim Flannery’s climate forecasts I am yet to be persuaded of their appropriateness in this instance.

As a justification of this assertion, consider Bjorn Lomborg. He has always been a supporter of the AGW hypothesis but has questioned the efficacy of the generally proposed solutions. As a result he has been excoriated as a skeptic, which, of course, he is not.

As an alternative justification, consider Lee Rhiannon. She has a history of actively supporting the Soviet Union and its policies, even at a time when even the most rusted on supporter was unable to honestly deny that this system was the most murderous in human history, contemptuous of each and every human right defined, and equally contemptuous to any issue of environmental concern. When the SU collapsed she segued seamlessly into the Greens, not only not issuing a word of regret for her past policies, but defending them and continuing to pursue them. Any political party which could accommodate her, rather than vomiting her out as a poisonous excrescence, is a party which I find difficulty regarding with anything approaching even the vaguest resemblance of respect.

You asserted “on this dossier it's the hierarchical-individualists (conservatives) who are in the wrong and use their skills to deceive themselves."

Instead, I assert that, as the Lomborg and Rhiannon cases exemplify, to so many progressives the policies are what matter, the problem is immaterial.

"As a justification of this assertion, consider Bjorn Lomborg. He has always been a supporter of the AGW hypothesis"

Simply false: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/example6.htm

If you can't stick to the truth, you're not going to get anywhere.

Lennert,

A further point, you refer to the 'scientific consensus'. I am afraid there is no such thing.

Consensus is a tool of politics, and a valid one at that, but it has no role in science at all. The concept of a scientific consensus is pretty much contrary to the core philosophy of science.

The term was invented as a political tool, and is used to try and shut down debate, but to mention it at all is to abandon discussion of science and to argue from the position of politics. I am afraid that when it comes to determining scientific truth, politics, and the concept of consensus, have no role. If someone cannot argue the science from the data then they have no argument at all.

Read that link as I may, I cannot see anything which invalidates what I said.

It even affirms it, as follows:
"In discussing the effects of man-made greenhouse gases on global temperatures, Lomborg does not deny that there may be an effect,"

They may be reluctant to acknowledge that Lomborg is a proponent of AGW, but they clearly can't deny it.

Read his articles, he is up front about his acceptance of AGW, he is just not sure that the introduction of Lee Rhiannon's (to choose an example) preferred model of society is the way to go.

Please don't abuse my truthfulness unless you are able to demonstrate I am lying. I may make mistakes - even if I didn't here - but I don't lie. Your statement was offensive.

Lennert,

A consensus may exist, but if it does, it is incidental and irrelevant when trying to persuade some other individual.

I did not claim that the consensus was not achieved by arguing the data, but rather that when trying to persuade another individual arguing from the data is the ONLY route open to you, or anyone else. Arguing from consensus is about as unscientific as one can get.

In other words, when trying to persuade a creationist of the validity of Darwinism the statement "97% of biologists accept Darwinian selection as the overwhelmingly main driving force behind speciation" is an abandonment of the principles of science. Your only option, and I mean ONLY option, is to explain the hypothesis and present the data which supports it. Your statement about x% of biologists supporting your position may be true, but it is irrelevant.

You are either able to present the data which supports your contention about the basis of speciation, or you have no argument at all.

Consensus is irrelevant, and that's science folks....

Patrick, I am puzzled at the reference to anti-immunization proponents.
There is one earth under consideration. There are millions of people who have been immunized. Results in one case occur within a decade. In the other decades and centuries are being mentioned.
For immunization, trials have been held to ascertain the efficacy of a particular limited action. On the other hand, the call is heard that "we must do something" without any clear evidence that the something will have any result than a warm inner glow.

"Consensus is irrelevant, and that's science folks...."

I disagree. I think consensus is highly relevant - not in the conduct of science, but in the application of science to public policy. Science does not occur in a vacuum - it is done with a purpose and within the context of social and political realities. The existence of a concensus indicates that individuals, generally highly skeptical and accustomed to deconstructing methods and data for the purpose of verification, have to to agree that yes, the data indicates what was claimed.

The consensus is necessary for those outside the relevant scientific disciplines to understand that policy decisions should be made (on whatever is the topic of discussion) on the basis of the science of the consensus. That is the appropriate risk managment approach. We do this for almost any area of public policy and it seems to pass by unnoticed for the most part. It seems only when the issue becomes politically contentious that policy makers (of whatever political colour) and their ideological adherents seek to claim that either a concensus does not exist, or that if it does, it is irrelevant.

Lennert,

I have said close to nothing about the science of climate change, one way or the other. My posting has been about the philosophy of science and basic rules of logic and logical discourse.

Quoting a ‘consensus’ is an appeal to authority, which is fine in religion, and an appeal to popularity, both of which are logical fallacies and neither of which has any role whatsoever, in any shape or form, in scientific discourse. In fact, to appeal to authority, to a consensus, is to abandon the fundamental principle of scientific philosophy.

Note, in the above I said nothing about quality of data, methods or conclusions in climate science. That is a different discussion.

The consensus itself: There is no tool or mechanism in science called a consensus. Consensus has no role in science and there is no mechanism by which one can be either reached or measured. The concept of ‘scientific consensus’ is a political construct and its sole purpose is the political one of stifling debate – as you demonstrate here.

The term is a very real and genuine example of an oxymoron.

You have no knowledge of what my training is, so there is no basis to your statement on that matter. It is, in fact, an example of another logical fallacy. Instead of dissecting what I say and refuting it, you instead attack me and my credibility by questioning my qualifications, despite the reality that they are irrelevant to the issue, and that you don’t know what they are anyway.

Then we have a fourth fallacy in your comment, where you criticise me for an argument I didn’t make, implying that my criticisms of the quality of logic and discussion here is in fact a criticism of the science in a specific field, thus avoiding addressing the points made and deflecting the discussion into a different area, but one where you are more comfortable.

So many logical fallacies in so short a comment.

"I think consensus is highly relevant - not in the conduct of science, but in the application of science to public policy."

Absolutely, but that is politics, not science. As I said earlier, consensus is a tool of politics, and a valuable one at that. However, my criticism is that seeking to persuade people of a scientific truth by reference to a scientific consensus an abuse of both science and politics.

Politics, through reference to an ascientific concept like consensus, has no role in determining scientific truth.

"Consensus is irrelevant, and that's science"

So what you're saying is that if you went to 100 heart surgeons and 97 said you needed bypass surgery and 3 said you didn't then the obvious choice is no surgery.

Chris,

If you wish to ask a rational question I will answer it, but I won't be baited with absurdities.

Chris, This is an old furphy.
The analogy falls down on multiple comparisons. Firstly, the heart surgeons have had experience in a very limited field, and have repeated a limited range of activities over short periods. Secondly, in many cases, they have a number of failures. However they have the opportunity to try again and perfect the technique.
"Climate scientists" - quite the neologism - is a generic term which is applied to a variety of people even including people whose main speciality is mammalogy.
Please advise me of 10 climate scientists who have successfully changed the planet's climate and I will accept your argument.
Oh, on heart surgeons. I was going to contact Neil Armstrong for his comments on your argument but ...

"It even affirms it"

No, you said: "He has always been a supporter of the AGW hypothesis"

Are trying to play silly buggers and equivocate about what "supporter of the AGW hypothesis" means? The cite says: "he does all he can to make the effect look as insignificant as possible." A genuine "supporter of the AGW hypothesis" does not do "all he can to make the effect look as insignificant as possible". If Lomberg really is "a supporter of the AGW hypothesis" then he would not "purport to demonstrate that the IPCC models come nowhere near close to simulating the actual temperature course up to now".

Perhaps you really meant that Lomborg accepts some small value of climate sensitivity when you said "he has always been a supporter of the AGW hypothesis". In that case he is a "skeptic" contrary to what you say. My citation had nothing about solutions or their efficacy.

"I won't be baited with absurdities"

Also known as proof by assertion of absurdity.

When it all comes down to it, the only things you have are substance-free assertions.

"I think this is the second time you've done this now"

That's right, because baiting with absurdities is a common tactic and life is too short.

Thank you Philip for moving the goalposts. It's good to know that you don't dispute that concensus is relevant.

Matthew,
I generally choose my words carefully. I was responding to an argument that uses an analogy that is not valid.
You seem to have missed this point. Additional reading may help you clarify your understanding of exactly what I said.

Matthew, You still don't it. The surgeons you referred presumably used the information obtained from much earlier research and discovery to make practical interventions into people's bodies.
You are confusing the difference between research and delivery.
I know how a nail gun works better than most carpenters, but that doesn't mean that I should be trusted with a nail gun.
The same can be said of electricians. Most electricians know less than theoretical physicists about electricity. But I wouldn't let a theoretical physicist rewire my house.

Have you bought shares in Geodynamics, the ASX listed compnay that Tim Flannery is associated with?
http://www.topstocks.com.au/stock_discussion_forum.php?action=gravytrain&fid=678
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/companyInfo.do?by=asxCode&asxCode=GDY
If you haven't then please explain why not, given that you consider his views are so relaible as to trust the world's future with?
Solyndra shares. Did you consider them?

Chris,
I don't think that consensus has any value in itself. All too often I have seen "consensus" appear as if by magic, when lunch or knock-off time has approached.
I would suggest that the reliability of a consensus is inversely proportional to the length of time to the next work break.

Chris,

I’m sorry, but I’m not playing anything. In fact, I suggest you are demonstrating the effect I was originally pointing out. Lomborg has opinions which seem to differ to yours, so you are determined to deny him the right to assert his support for the AGW hypothesis at all. Nothing you have pointed out, or said, demonstrates his skepticism on the AGW hypothesis, merely his disagreement with both you and the IPCC on some issues, or your disagreement with him.

Last time I checked, neither of these things were sufficient to disqualify anyone from AGW proponent status. That some website discusses his work using loaded language is neither here nor there.

So, who do I believe? You or his own testimony and work?

"Also known as proof by assertion of absurdity"

Yep.

Doesn't mean I’m not right though.

Ok, I will deal with your question. If I were ill and a specialist (one specialist, not 100) were to tell me I needed a bypass I would listen to his(her?) arguments. I would probably seek a second opinion, and then maybe even a third. I would listen to the arguments and consider my response. I would then make a decision based on those arguments, and the weightings I gave them, along with whichever other issues I felt relevant.

I would not visit 100 surgeons, or even 10, and then go with some claimed consensus. The scenario you paint is ridiculous to the point of being an insult to the intelligence to all concerned. It is what I would expect of some teenager who fancies they are scoring points, rather than from an intelligent and educated adult.

The situation you describe would not arise in the real world, and I reiterate that it is absurd to suggest it.

Chris hArper claims that "lack of certitude" in relation to climate science IS justification for inaction.

Clearly, he has no idea what he is talking about.

I suggest he read a little more to inform himself

“Adaptation to Global Warming: Do Climate Models Tell Us What we Need to Know?”
(Orestes, Stainforth & Smith)
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CATS/publications/papersPDFs/80_AdaptationtoGlobalWarming_2010.pdf

and “Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy”
(Smith & Stern)
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CATS/publications/papersPDFs/86_SmithStern_Uncertainty_2011.pdf

Although Smith points out the models cannot say much with certainty at anything less than a continental scale he points out

“Scientific understanding of the mechanisms of the climate system and their likely responses reinforces the view that the risks are signficant and that a delay in action can be very costly” (P16) and
“The case against action has to sucessfully argue that the risks are small not merely that the outcomes are uncertain” (p18)

I wonder on what basis Mr Harper claims a greater wisdom?

The real lunacy is the failure to understand that mitigation/emissions reduction is a process, not an event. And a lengthy one at that.

By the time we wait to discover whether or not climate sensivity is low or high, or what, exactly is the “proportion” of climate change due to human influence – it will be too late to do anything about it.

Waiting till “certainty” is reached not only means the costs of mitigation will be enormous but there will be unavoidable consequences that we may not even have the capacity to adapt to

On the other hand if our migiation steps have been more than necessary it is relatively easy to slow them down.

I offer the following analogy I used on another site

We are in a car. We know there is a potential hazard up ahead but we don’t know exactly how hazardous – only that it could quite possibly result in a serious smash if we hit it too fast and that this is a realistic scenario – although we might get lucky and find it’s a hazard that just causes a few bumps.

What would you do? Slow down? or step on the gas? Or wait until you knew with certainty what the hazard was but could not avoid the impact by the time you knew?

"I would probably seek a second opinion, and then maybe even a third."

In that case you would be very unlikely to have found a surgeon that said you didn't need bypass surgery.

"I would listen to the arguments and consider my response. I would then make a decision based on those arguments, and the weightings I gave them, along with whichever other issues I felt relevant."

Amazing. Three out of three heart surgeons would conclude you needed bypass surgery and you think you could then decide to do nothing further! There is no arguing with an ego like this.

"I would not visit 100 surgeons, or even 10, and then go with some claimed consensus. The scenario you paint is ridiculous to the point of being an insult to the intelligence to all concerned."

It's a hypothetical scenario for the basis of logical consideration. Ironically, the only intelligence it insults is one too low to understand this.

So I can take it that you do not trust Tim Flannery's papers or books?

"Nothing you have pointed out, or said, demonstrates his skepticism on the AGW hypothesis"

You're wrong. Kare Web on his web page describes how Lomborg makes the effect of AGW "look as insignificant as possible". All you are doing is asserting that Kare Web's arguments for his claim that Lomberg "does all he can to make the effect look as insignificant as possible" do not support his claim. You provide absolutely no justification for your assertion at all.

"merely his disagreement with both you and the IPCC on some issues"

Your claim was that Lomberg was excoriated because he "has questioned the efficacy of the generally proposed solutions". I provide a cite where he was criticized for something that was not "questioning the efficacy of the generally proposed solutions" so he was indeed "excoriated" for more than just "questioning the efficacy of the generally proposed solutions"

So why did I only get such a low score? Surely people have heard of Professor Julius Sumner Miller, Professor Feynman or perhaps even Bill Gates .. or do they live in Canberra?

I live in Canberra. I too was brought up on JSM and I know who Gates and Feynman are - and Murray Gell-Mann too. I marked you down for misappropriating them in service of your cause.

You do not know what JSM's stance on AGW would be - he is dead and has been for a long time, not so long for Feynman but still dead. If you want to bring Gates in link to his views on AGW (he is not on the do nothing side).

So, Dennis, what exactly is my cause?

I think that if Feynman were able to respond to your use of his name he would leave you with no doubt as to his opinions about which camp in this concern is trying to diligently work out what is going on with the temperature, and which camp is diligently trying to keep making money off the backs of ignorant people.

The Good News, Phil, is that the kiddies are now being taught the following.

Earth is warmed by absorption of short wave sunlight. Because of this, Earth's temperature can remain unchanged by returning the same amount of energy to space. That is, solar shortwave energy is balanced by the earth re-radiating to space as a 'black body' radiator with a characteristic temperature of ~255K; that is, from space the earth's spectrum is roughly that of a radiating body with an optical surface temperature of around 255K.

Earth's surface cools by evaporation of excited water molecules, heat transfer to deeper sea and to polar ice caps and by convection and radiation back into and through the atmosphere. At higher altitudes, where the atmosphere gets less dense, the proportion of energy (heat) transfer by long wave 'thermal' (microwave) radiation increases. Observing earth's spectrum from space has big absorption bands due to greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. Prominent among these is carbon dioxide (CO2).

Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC's, and ozone (O3) absorp, then re-emit, some longwave wavelengths. About half of the re-emitted radiation is diverted back down toward the surface, as confirmed by radiation measurements at both surface and satellite observatories. This discrepancy increases with atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH.

Heat thus accumulates at the surface. About 90% of retained heat warms oceans, accelerating ice melting (sea level rise) and water evaporation (increasing rain and storms).

Warming feedbacks already initiated (ie tipping points already being crossed) are loss of Arctic sea ice, so that boreal summer sunlight absorption in the Arctic Ocean is increasing (less sunlight reflection), the aforementioned sublimation of offshore Siberian methane clathrates, and methane outgassing from thawing permafrost.

Deforestation limits biosequestration of atmospheric CO2 so that reversion to glacial conditions is not presently possible, even when earth's orbital precession minimises intensity of sunlight on Arctic terrestrial icecaps (ie right now).

You too could learn it from Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming - a History" available as a book or as a set of hyperlinked essays at the website of the American Institute of Physics. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

I think Julius Sumner Miller would have agreed strongly with Ian Chubb:

"We are approaching a darkness in the land. Boys and girls are emerging from every level of school with certificates and degrees, but they can't read, write or calculate. We don't have academic honesty or intellectual rigor. Schools have abandoned integrity and rigor."
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-04-16/news/mn-721_1_julius-sumner-miller

David, This is an interesting claim.
I have asked my four children what they are taught in science on this subject.
Could I suggest that you cease hyperventilating and start dealing with reality.
I also have access to additional evidence in support of my statement.

Given that you have been posting climate denier junk here for quite a while, I am assuming that that is a trick question.

Additional evidence? Jo Nova and Anthony Watts?

Pray, do tell.

Wow Philip, David Archer thinks teaching kids that the Earth is a black body is a good thing. Well, when more enlightened scientists consider it a grey body with different characteristics then a hard disc and that it does not have a characteristic T of 255 kelvin, I would say teaching kids that climate is a incomprehensible system with many unknowns is a far better scientific approach. ie, the science is not settled.

I have also chatted to a variety of post-secondary students about various aspects of their education, particularly about their IT teachers, from a variety of schools.
in addition, I have been made aware of many websites that science teachers use in NSW schools.

argumentum ad misericordiam

One can only wonder how you sleep at night having such great fear of Armageddon.

The commentator statement was one of certainty, "is consigning". His statement is akin to " Members of the jury, because you have found".

Moreover, if they are real world consequences then Greenland would never have been named Greenland. :-)

"Moreover, if they are real world consequences then Greenland would never have been named Greenland. :-)"

Your ignorance of the etymology of the name "Greenland" is profound.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Greenland_get_its_name

At the time that Greenland was discovered, the Earth was a bit warmer and southern Greenland actually had green meadows and could sustain villages of Norse settlers and their cattle, sheep, goats, horses, etc. The name was actually an accurate description of the land at the time.

Since that time the Earth had cooled down some and the ice sheets advanced, forcing the Norse settlers out again.

A similar history befell the early Norse settlers to "Vineland" (North America). When they arrived the weather was warm enough to grow grapes. Ultimately global cooling drove the Norsemen back to Greenland and then Iceland. The colony in Iceland was well established by that time and survived.

LOL. That is so appallingly inaccurate it is amusing. Suffice to say that the use of wiki answers as a main source is pretty much an automatic fail in any of my classes. I'm very passionate about my Norse history but it seems that Erik's somewhat fanciful descriptions continue to be repeated as "facts".

As for your statement about the advancement of the ice sheet, how old is the ice sheet? Next question, was the medieval warm period a global or local event?

Oh, so your logic determines the ice sheet regression in MWP was local but ice sheet regression now is due to global factors.

I'm passionate about theory of the syllogism. so what?

No Lennert bad move. Citing Skeptical Science is not a good ploy at this stage of the debate as it is akin to citing the bible during a discussion of evolution.

"Citing Skeptical Science is not a good ploy"

Double standard much?

You referred us to a video called "The Boy Who Cried Warming" and you want to call Lennert out on Sceptical Science?

It wasn't a citation like this one;

1) http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/31/height-of-antarctica-ice-sheet-increasing
or this one;

2) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 . From Norse no less.

Now about the syllogism aspects of universal argument on current arctic ice regression, see citaition 1). above.

Also now, until you get out and read up a bit more our discussion ends, least I get dumbed down.

"David Archer thinks teaching kids that the Earth is a black body is a good thing."

That's not what he said. Considering your difficulty with reading comprehension it's no surprise you have so much trouble with radiation physics.

Who is this David Archer bloke, anyway?

I think I have found the problem!

James is a primary school teacher - and thinks he knows more about climate change than the scientists who study it.

Please James. Unless your post is clever sarcasm (in which case, well done!), then either don't talk about your 'beliefs' in front of the children who are entrusted to your care, or give up your job.

And take away the number you first thought of the answer is? And the answer is?

Who is correct Flannery or Pitman and how come our Chief Scientist in his own words does not have a clue? Of course if the science is settled maybe they are both wrong in which case someone can calculate the figure and tell us all. And then someone else can do the same calculation and come up with the same result. And the answer is?

Coochey is just being deliberately dense.

John

As several people jave pointed out to you, myself included. They are both right.

Pitman answered on how long before temperatures would stop RISING - decades

Flannery answered on when temperatures would start FALLING - Centuries to millenia.

Which part of they are answering DIFFERENT QUESTIONS do you not get?

Once again are we being told that we would have 980 years of constant temperatures. And the answer is?

Therefore "The answer is?" Just answer the question once!

So temperatures plateau for nine hundred and eighty years? Come on Get Real. This is like a group of Catholics trying to retain Papal Infallibility but trying to rationalize two contradictory statements by two different popes. This is not science but a religion!

To which question John. As I said, there are two separate questions, each with its own separate answer

Q1 If we stopped emitting CO2 today, how long would temperatures keep rising? A1 decades.

Q2 If we stopped emitting CO2 today, how long before temperaures would start falling? A2 Centuries or millenia.

So simple John. You pick which question you are asking and then pick the applicable answer.

And in response to one of your comments above, until recently, Temperatures have actually been pretty stable for the last 10,000 years. Fluctuations of no more than a degree or so, with a slow downward trend due to Milankovitch cycle effects after the end of the last InterGlacial.

Thats the whole point John. If the thermodynamic factors causing temperatures don't change much, temperatures don't change much.

You have got bo be joking Mr Stokes!

" Flannery was answering that question, but Pitman wasn't - Pitman was saying how long temperatures would continue to rise before before they plateaued"

Professor Andy Pitman is known to have misrepresented Melbourne's maximum temperature on national radio when he claimed that Avalon's temperature was Melbourne's temperature. There are about 11 closer weather stations to Melbourne than Avalon, including, amazingly, Melbourne. A quick check confirmed that Avalon has a higher summer temperature than, again amazingly, all of these stations. I have the proof. He has admitted it in writing.

Never, ever believe anything Professor Pitman says about temperature until you have checked the facts yourself.

Gerard Dean

And your calculations are based on? Remember science is not based on belief.

The're not 'my' calculations John. This is based on the published science, basic thermodynamics and chemistry.

However, here are some very, very rough, back of an envelope calculations, just as an indication

Mass of the Atmosphere is around 5 *10^18 kg
Mass of the Ocean is around 1.4 * 10^21 kg
Specific heat of air is around 1 KJoule/Kg C
Specific heat of water is around 4.2 KJoule/Kg C

Crunch those numbers and we get that it takes around 1175 times as much heat to increase the average temperature of the oceans by a certain number of degrees as it does to increase the average temperature of the atmosphere by the same amount.

Observations of warming of the atmosphere and the oceans over the last 1/2 century show that the oceans have accumulated around 30 times as much heat as the atmosphere over that period.

So, 1175/30 = 39.2

If additional heating of the atmosphere due to CO2 stopped today, at the rate at which it is accumulating heat, the oceans would need around 4 decades to warm to the same degree as the air.

Obviously other factors will influence this. The lower levels of the ocean may not warm as much, this would reduce the time needed to reach equilibrium. But as the oceans approach the same degree of warming as the air, the rate at which they warm may slow, thus meaning it would take somewhat longer. But the figure would still be of the order of several decades, which is what I have said all along.

Next, for temperatures to drop after the oceans and the air have reached a new equilibrium, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have to start to drop. The main factor governing CO2 levels in the atmosphere once external sources of addition of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning has been removed is the interaction between the atmosphere and the oceans.

Simple solutions of gases in liquids are governed by Henry's law which defines the amount of any gas that can exist in solution in a liquid compared to the amount that exists as a gaseous phase above the liquid. Henry's Law does include a temperature component, so that warmer liquids can't hold as much dissolved gas - pour a glass of cold tap water then leave it to warm to room temperature and there will be a few bubbles on the glass since the warmer water can't hold as much gas.

However solution of CO2 in sea water isn't a case of a simple solution, there are other factors involved. CO2 solution in sea water is an example of what is called a Buffered Solution. At its simplest, when a substance dissolves in a liquid and then is able to undergo chemical reactions with that liquid, these reactions then have a large influence on the balance between the gas and the liquid. In the case of CO2, when dissolved in water it reacts to form a weak acid called Carbonic Acid. This is the substance that early scientists first discovered in the 18th century before they even understood what molecules were. And it is why pure rainwater is weakly acidic. CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere react to produce some Carbonic Acid.

Once the CO2 has reacted with water in the ocean, producing Carbonic Acid, a number of other reactions occur, primarily producing carbonate and bicarbonate ions. Most of the CO2 'dissolved' in the oceans is actually in the form of these ions, not as true dissolved molecular CO2. And it is the changes in the ratio of carbonate to bicarbonate ions as more CO2 gets dissolved that is the basis of the threat posed by so called 'ocean acidification'

So, to start reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, what is required is some process to remove some of the carbonate & bicarbonate ions from the ocean, allowing more CO2 to be dissolved. And the main way this happens is when these ions react with elements like Calcium and Silicon to produce carbonate type rocks such as Limestone. A small perscentage of these reactions can occur in the upper oceans due to transport of these minerals into the ocean from weathering & erosion on land and transfer down the worlds rivers, which then settles to the sea floor.

But far and away the major location where these reactions can occur is where the waters of the ocean can come into direct contact with very large sources of these minerals. And that happens primarily on the sea floor since that is the largest surface area of rock in contact with the ocean.

In order for this reaction to occur, surface waters that have absorbed more CO2 need to reach the sea floor to be brought into proximity with the rock.

So the key driver determining the rate of decline of CO2 levels, and thus temperatures, is the over-turning time of the ocean - how long it takes on average for the top and bottom waters to mix. Oceanographers estimate this time at around 800-1000 years.

And that number is the source of the figure of centuries to perhaps millenia. It all depends on how slowly the oceans are able to move CO2 enriched water down to the depths where it can sediment out as things like Limestone.

So the estimated numbers I gave you, yes rough estimates, are based on thermodynamics, oceanography and chemistry.

Thanks Glenn - this is a very informative (and well informed) post. It's taught me something for which I am grateful.

As I am sure you are aware though - you're wasting your time with Coochey. As his persistent trolling on side issues and constant gish gallop response demonstrates - he doesn't wan't want to learn or inform himself- only to obfuscate and deny.

For the rest of us. Thanks ")

Mr Albrecht

I am not scraping the barrel. Professor Pitman betrayed the trust of the Radio National program makers and their audience when he deliberately misrepresented Avalon's temperature as Melbourne's temperature.

You will see the figures in a comment lower down the page. Whether I am a troll or not, a denier or not, drive a 7 litre V8 or not, ride a Harley or not, design and build my own 150cc DOHC V12, dual carburettor engine or not is irrelevent.

The fact is that Professor Pitman deliberately chose the hottest temperature to spin his argument. You should not attack me or defend Professor Pitman, he should be your target because he has done your cause a diservice.

Thank you

Gerard Dean
PS. All of the engine related items above are true.

Mark

As with all such on-line conversations, there are some people with whom one can disagree but still debate. Others with whom it is all pointless.

However, there is another category for whom we actually really address our comments. The silent lurkers. All those folks who read but don't comment.

All our commments should be pitched at informing those folks. Only they will decide whether the sorts of comments I and others like me have made have influenced them more or less than the comments by someone like John.

However, my experience of most people is that they don't react well to snide spercilious comments that don't back up what they say.

Are you reading this John? Your audience is listening. Are you going to respond with some reasoned arguments or evidence or continue with the snide tone. It isn't about what I think or you. It's all about our audience!

If you want people to accept your view, convince them John.

"deliberately misrepresented Avalon's temperature as Melbourne's temperature."

That phrase right there is your error. Your assumption becomes an accusation without foundation. That you cannot see that is a factor of your subjective view of the issue of climate change rather than a representation of the facts.

I remember when this happened, and the fuss it caused. Prof Pitmans use of Avalon as a proxy for Melbourne was not just an overstatement, but a fairly dreadful propaganda ploy.

It caused a stink at the time, and quite right too. In meteorological terms Avalon is not Melbourne, and never has been. Forty eight Km is a significant distance and can put you into a completely different set of climatic conditions which simply are not comparable.

The absolutely best gloss that can be put on this was that it was both shoddy and sloppy, and Prof Pitman should have apologised and corrected himself. I don't remember that happening.

48 km is NOTHING in terms of climate conditions. Apparently Mr Harper fails to understand the difference between weather and climate

Weather is the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloudiness, moisture, pressure, etc.at a given place

Climate is the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a REGION, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

Avalon is clearly in the Melbourne region

Mark,

You really are a dreadfully rude individual, you know that? Where is my apology for your calling me a fool last night over a matter where I was demonstrably right? I wouldn’t normally worry about that, but you were so forthright that I would have thought you might regret your intemperate outburst of abuse over a matter where I was clearly more informed than you. You did read my posting on German emissions this morning, didn’t you?

I don’t need your definition of climate thank you, I think we all here should take certain levels of understanding for granted, even if sometimes we can elide concepts in these short comments. Anyway, Prof Pitman took a weather data point, one days temperature at Avalon, and used it as a starting point for a prediction of the climate of Melbourne.

Contrary to your assertion 48Km can, in fact, be a significant distance with respect to climate. Where I sit, right now, the climate is temperate/subtropical and the night is quite balmy tending towards chilly. 48Km west, in the Gold Coast hinterland, we are up in the mountains and I would need a fire going to keep warm. Quite a different climate.

Anyway, having dealt with that, given that both Melbourne and Avalon are both on the Bay shoreline I wouldn’t expect the difference to be as extreme between them as between the Gold Coast and its mountainous hinterland, but still. They are so far separated, and the bay configuration near them so different, that I really can’t take seriously any claim that one can be a reliable proxy for the other. You can disagree with me, I don’t care, I just won’t be able to take any such claim seriously without some seriously detailed justifications..

Have a look at them, Melbourne is fully exposed to the broader bay, and Avalon is exposed only to an arm and is partly sheltered by the headlands.

Sorry.

Mr Stokes

You appear to have missed the point of raising Einstein's "believe".

You said Einstein, arguably the most eminent scientist since Newton, used the word 'belief' as shorthand for "I find it to be inductively probable that.."

The problem is Mr Stokes, Einstein got the 'inductively probable' wrong. The quantum physicists lead by Niels Bohr won the day.

Niels Bohr didn't ignore Einstein when he said "I believe", instead he proved his quantum physics theories through good science.

Likewise, Professor Chubb should allow anyone to say whatever they like about climate science, using whatever words they feel comfortable with. It is up to him, as Australia's Chief Scientist, to stand by his arguments, not by ridiculing people's choice of language or assuming we are all puppets of "shock jocks, rather by referring to the science.

Thank you

Gerard Dean

Gerard,

Spot on.

The problem with the title of Chief Scientist is that people, such as journalists with no understanding of science or the scientific method, can be inclined to take Prof Chubbs title at face value and accord him an authority that he does not possess.

I understand what you mean by 'allow' in the above posting, but some people, especially these days, will interpret that as meaning 'officially permit', as if he has the authority to permit or deny. He doesn't of course, being just a civil servant adviser to the government.

Still, allowing people to say what they like, using words they are comfortable with, is distinctly unfashionable amongst progressives today.

Mr Stokes

I will put this another way. I am not a scientist. Professor Andy Pitman is. By your definition, we should trust Profesor Pitman to deliver scientific facts. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Several months ago, Professor Pitman, speaking on the "Off Track" program Radio National, said " there will be more hot days like the recent 48C in Melbourne."

Aware that Melbourne's record temperature was 46.2Deg C on Black Saturday, just pipping the previous record, 45.8Deg C on Black Friday in 1939, I fired off a question to Professor Pitman, asking him to back up his comment.

Professor Pitman replied to me, writing that the 48 Deg C was the temperature in Avalon Airport on Black Saturday. He also wrote, and I quote, "Station 087113 - as any meteorologist knows - is Avalon airport, which I referred to as "in Melbourne" - which it is in most definitions." To check Professors statement, check Avalon Airport on Google Maps. It sits all alone, much closer to Geelong to Melbourne and on the edge of huge western Victorian plane.

His answer stunned me, so I did the research and located the main temperature stations located between Melbourne City and Avalon, about 13 in total. Using the hottest day last summer for a comparison, the Avalon station was 1.1 degrees above Melbourne city, with all other stations lower again.

Professor Pitman, knowingly quoted a temperature station 50 Km from Melbourne when there were 12 closer stations. Nor did he disclose on the radio program that he deliberately chose a hotter station than Melbourne City to describe Melbourne's maximum temperature. This disclosure only occurred after I raised the issue.

I have sent this information to the Australian Research Council, and thus far have not received a reply - 5 months.

All of the email communications and data is on file and the ABC website to back up this discraceful manipulation of temperature data by a Professor.

This is why I do not trust Professor Chubb telling me that I should not question scientists. Professor Pitman has effectively destroyed my trust in scientists, so I will always question. And that is as it should be.

Gerard Dean.

*Head asplody*

Chris, I have been polite and civil and lobbed in with constructive comments and debate - and here we have you, your actual agenda finally revealed.

You small man, you pathetic unaccomplished envious piece of dross.

Do I issue and insult rather than comment?

You bet.

Is it constructive?

Hell no.

You try to tear down what you have no hope of attaining and cannot even see how far below that level you are scrabbling.

Professor Chubb has never claimed authority he does not possess, his office is clearly described and his role articulated. That you don't like the facts he offers gives you ONLY the right to disagree - beyond that you fall victim to the arrogance of your own ignorance.

Grendelus,

You are quite right.

That comment by me was, right or wrong, inappropriate for this thread.

I wish I could take it back, but I can't.

I offer a blanket apology to all for a comment which should not have been made.

You just don't get it do you Mr Stokes,

Professor Chubb's article is about trust - trust scientists who deal in facts, not shock jocks who manipulate their audience or simpletons who say, 'do you believe.."

Professor Andy Pitman betrayed that trust - pure and simple.

Once you are on the receiving end of patronising put downs by one of Australia's best know scientist, a put down that graphically illustrated he was manipulating the data to 'Sex Up' his argument to an unknowing Radio National audience.

Professor Pitman's behaviour was worse than a shock jock, because he is a scientist, a person we should trust, according to Professor Chubb.

I am afraid you lost this one Mr Stokes.

Gerard Dean

*Like* Would also add *Applause*.

Gerard's devotion to his cause is amazing.

Also - curiosity got the better of me. I created a chart and trend line looking at daily maxima from 1995 to 2012 at Avalon. Trendline shows an increase of 1.5 degrees over that period.

A couple of other small points Gerard

It isn't Prof Chubb's article. It was written by Charis Palmer. She interviewed Chubb

Secondly, where in his comments does he mention trust of scientists? The word trust doesn't appear in either his quoted comments or Charis' text. Trust is only mentioned here in the comments section.

To the extent that anyone could take Prof Chubb's comments as have other unstated meanings, he appears to nnbe saying that our trust should be placed in the evidence. That is actually the whole point of his speech about belief. It isn't about belief, even belief in some individuals.

It is about 'trust' in the evidence.

Things like the evidence in support of the data in the HiTran Spectroscopic database.

Trust in the detailed science behind the development of the Radiative Transfer Eqn, beginning with Goody et al 1952.

Trust in the Clausius-Claperon eqn that is experimentally validated avery day in HVAC systems around the world.

You still haven't attempted a rejection of these things as I invited you to do.

But not to worry, there is always another strawman/windmill for you to go tilt at.

Boys, you still don't get it.

Professor Pitman didn't use Avalon to 'simplify' the story for Radio National listeners, he deliberately chose Avalon, over 12 closer temperature stations to Melbourne, including Melbourne itself, to support his argument.

Here is the data I sent to Professor Pitman to illustrate why he should not have done so.

Let's see how closely Avalon represents Melbournes temperature compared with 11 nearby weather stations. We can use 2 Jan 2012 (hottest summer day)

Avalon 41.1 (over 50Km SW of Melb)
Melbourne 40.0
(Following stations closer to Melb than Avalon)
Moorabbin 39.7
Laverton 39.5
Melbourne Airport 39.2
Essendon 39.0
Bundoora 38.9
Viewbank 38.8
Cranbourne 38.4
Scoresby 38.1
Coldstream 36.5
Frankston 36.1
Ferny Creek 33.6

Avalon's temperature is 1.1D higher than Melbourne. All eleven, closer stations are lower than Melbourne.

Scientists should not do this, it brings their profession into disrepute.

Thank you

Gerard Dean

"Would you say that temperatures in Wollongong are irrelevant to discussions of Sydney's weather?"

Dunno, don't know Sydney.

"Or discussions of Reading's weather are irrelevant for discussions of London's weather?"

Yes, I would. Absolutely. Reading and London are sufficiently distant from one another for it to make little sense to lump them together weather wise. In fact, forget Reading, even London and Croydon can deserve separate consideration when considering weather, and they are both within the M25. It can snow in London and be a cold, clear and crisp day in Croydon. Ditto rain, storms or cloud cover.

Likewise Melbourne and Avalon. They are not the same place by any stretch.

Ongoing confusion of weather versus climate. Once again you offer an opinion from ignorance (as does Mr Dean)

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/environ/other/kpn_all.shtml

The evidence shows that Avalon and melbourne are part of the same Climate Zone

Mr Stokes.

Professor Pitman has two options when discussing Melbourne's temperature; either quote the Melbourne station as Melbourne's temperature (The actual and preferred option) or, average all of the stations including Avalon and quote it as Melbourne Metropolitan average temperature.

I will put $100 on the table that Professor Pitman would never quote the average of the 13 or so stations as Melbourne Metro's average temperature for one simple reason - the average would be 38.4 which 2.7 degrees below Avalon's 41.1. It is strange that his random choice of Avalon as Melbourne's temperature station is the highest - amazing really.

I have the facts, including Professor Pitman's emails that back up my contention he mislead the Radio National audience. I understand that it is hard to accept that an Australian Professor would do such a thing, but after all, they are human, just like you and me.

So, one more time. Never, ever, ever trust anything Professor Pitman says about temperature until you have checked the facts.

Thanks

Gerard Dean

Patrick - let it go.

Mr Dean is well versed in the art of misrepresenting matters, selectively quoting isolated data to cherry pick a point and slag off at others whilst committing far worse sins of the same nature himself.

He has no interest in Academic truth, or honesty, or vene sensible dialogue about the subject. He's just an attention seeker suffering some sort of inadequacy syndrome and desperately seeking recognition.

When you confront him with evidence that demolishes him he either weasels away or shifts what he says. he hasn't the cojones to admit his misrepresentations or change his stance. There's no genuine desire to understand or learn or contribute anything positive. He's just another Tarradiddle Regurgitator Of Laughable Logic

Sheer genius!

I'm also adopting tarradiddle.

Has great potential as a paper title "The place of the tarradiddle in contentious online discourse: The application of untruths when evidence is lacking"

The problem, gentlemen, is definitions - or the lack of them.

Is Avalon Melbourne or not? Depends on the definition.

Now, to an extent it does not matter what the definition is, so long as it isn't nonsensical, and so long as the same definition is used on all occasions.

Every year people bet on whether snow falls on London on Christmas day. To resolve this question the definition of snow on London is determined as the amount of snow which falls on a weather station on the roof of the Post Office Tower during the day in question, or so I believe (note to all - I don't really care). The level of snow in Croydon, or Reading, is not pertinent to the question, and neither is the level of snow on the ground outside the Tower.

So it is with Avalon. If the definition of the temperature of Melbourne, as published in the media and official reports, is, day on day, week on week, year on year, the single data point of the temperature at Avalon then Prof Pitman was, by definition, right. If the definition of temperatures in Melbourne, as published, year on year, is something, anything, other than the temperature at Avalon then Prof Pitman is, by definition, wrong, and the only valid discussion is why he said what he said.

Now, according to this:

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDV60901/IDV60901.94868.shtml

Melbourne temperatures are determined by observations at: MELBOURNE REGIONAL OFFICE Lat: -37.81 Lon: 144.97 Height: 31.15 m

Please note, Avalon is not mentioned, That, to my mind, settles the definition of what constitutes the temperature of Melbourne.

Patrick Stokes commented:
"Your post assumes there's one, all-purpose, unambiguous definition which is utterly definitive for all contexts.”

No, just those contexts where unambiguous definitions are necessary.

“We almost never use *any* concept like that,”

Of course we do. All the time. Especially when discussing scientific measurements of any sort.

“and we certainly don't in how we relate to the weather.”

We most certainly do. Every time we discuss weather records that is exactly what we do. In fact, any time anyone needs to be sure they are comparing like with like that is exactly what they do.

“That's demonstrated by the British example you use: it's a highly artificial definition used for very specific purposes.”

Yes. It is the conditions as reported at a weather station, just like all other reports by bureaus of meteorology all over the world.

“And in the context in which Pitman was speaking, citing Avalon's Black Saturday temperature as the hottest it's ever been in Melbourne is perfectly reasonable.”

No it is not. Prof Pitman, talking as a climate scientist used a technical term to put over a technical point and used an absolutely in inappropriate definition in order to make a propaganda point. In doing this he perverted his authority in his area of technical expertise in order to influence a political issue.

The best possible gloss that can be put on this is that Prof Pitman was unprofessional and sloppy. The worst is that he used his authority to lie in order to influence policy. That newscasters may be imprecise in their speech reflects on them. I see no reason to encourage scientists, speaking in a scientific context, to follow their lead.

At this point we are talking opinion and interpretation. As a Melburnian, growing up there, Avalon would never have been considered as part of Melbourne. There would have been no disagreement, because the possibility would never have come up, any more than a claim that Geelong was part of Melbourne.

That to one side, we clearly have different expectations of scientists. When I hear a scientist addressing a technical issue in their area of expertise I don’t just expect precision in speech, I assume it is there as a matter of course. It is the way I speak when dealing with matters in my area of expertise and I expect the same thing from all others at all times. I know from experience that if I am sloppy in my speech problems can, and do, arise, whereas if I am precise and clear the possibility of misunderstanding and dispute is minimised – which is the aim. This is exactly what I expect from scientists, at all times.

Then Chris, you are effectively expecting scientists to mislead people.

Not because their statements are not factually correct, or that what they say is not precise.

Rather, what they are trying to do is take the understanding they have and convey it to a mainstream audience that doesn't have that understanding, not one iota of it.

AND an audience that is not well schooled, used to or comfortable with rigourous language. The folks commenting here at The Conversation are most definitely NOT representative of the broader population.

Most people assimilate knowledge through metaphor's, emotional judgement systems, by reference to comparable images that they already have etc. It is actually quite rare to find people who can actually process exact and rigorous language.

When a scientists talks about uncertainty, i.e the level of accuracy of their readings, the layman hears 'doubt'. When they say that something isn't statistically significant, the laymen 'hears' that it is inconsequential.

So for a scientist, if they wish to communicate with the broader public they have to translate their knowledge into the language of the general public!

And general, lay english is never precise. never rigorous, never exact. Most normal human communication is about using language to convey deeper meanings through the use of metaphors, imagery, word pictures.

Most people - in fact every single one of us in some parts of our lives - use language in very imprecise ways to create word 'pictures' that have emotional, spiritual, identity affirmation attributes. Very few people actually live their daily lives dealing with 'facts'.

This isn't a criticism of people, it is simply an observation of the nature of human psychology.

So if you are bothered by the use of imprecise language by Prof Pitman, isn't that akin to you,as an English speaker criticising Andy Pitman, another English speaker for what he says when he is speaking to a Frenchman?

If you want to judge Andy on how well he uses precision when that is the communications mode he is employing, judge him by what he says in communication forums were precision is the lingua franca - the Scientific Literature.

But you seem to be criticizing him for a lack of precision in language usage in an environment where precise language is actually gobbledeegook, and broad, imprecise, emotive language is actually the lingua franca.

Look at Patrick Stokes reply above. The first sentence is 4 1/2 lines long, broken up with complex grammar. The second sentence is just as long, with words like ideological, methodological, more complex grammar, a 'Principle of Clarity', a almost double negative - 'certainly not in evidence', and the idea of 'a point that is well taken' - no offence intended Patrick.

This is not the language of common, man in the street, conversation. If Andy had used the language often seen here on The Conversation, there would have been no point in him going onto radio at all.

Ah typo - climate senility should, of course, read climate sensitivity :) If only the climate might be senile LOL. The devilry of spell checkers :)

Really well put Mark. I was reading an article online today from Catherine Deveny about trolls, which sums up the deniers who post here quite well:

"...Enter the troll. Small pathetic little people hell-bent on getting attention by slagging off, sledging or just being boring. Hate-filled abusive messages driven by envy and relevance-deprivation is their game. Generally men, generally anonymous, generally misogynist. Why? Because they can. Are they interested in constructive debate, engagement with issues or making the world a better place? No. They're just interested in getting attention they feel they are entitled to..."

Allan, I am so pleased to see that you are quoting such an intellectual giant as Catherine Deveny.
How about you Google her name in conjunction with Bindi Irwin's.

Thanks Allan - I saw the same article. It's why I've decided to stop feeding them. I've given up presenting the science and the facts to them. It's pointless. They don;t want to know. They are in denial and evidence doesn't matter to them. It's like Mr Dean on this thread - he's just here to troll and stir. He has no real concern about anything - just recognition seeking.

Nor has he any intellectual calibre, honesty or fortitude. For example - on another thread when I called him out on his false statement that Germany was increasing their emissions by presenting data showing they had lowered their emissions by more than 200 MegaTonnes per annum since 1990 he hadn't the guts to admit his error. Just silence.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2012/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2012-report

The Trolls are witless cowardly fools who should be ignored.

I would have to look up the precise data, It is late and I can't really make the effort, but unified Germany, from 1990, did have a massive reduction in emissions. Not as a result of much that the old West Germany did, but as a result of the massive closures in the former East Germany as inefficient and extremely dirty Soviet era industry found it could not compete and went the way of a candle flame.

This would have happened regardless, but it allowed Germany to meet its targets without industry in the Western bit doing much at all.

It is my understanding, although I am happy to be shown I am wrong if anyone has the figures, that West German emissions continued to rise in this period. Arguably both Mark Harrigan and Gerard Dean could be correct on this matter, depending on where you are standing.

A similar thing happened in Russia itself as uncompetitive industry was allowed to close.

Rubbish. German reunification occured in 1990. Emissions at that time were 1.02 gigatones per annum
in 2011 they were 0.81. The data is clearly visible in the link I posted.

If Mr Harper is suaually so willing to offer an opinion based on no evidence and the excuse "I really can't make the effort" he is a fool who should be ignored.

Mark,

Yes, you are quite right. Fool I am.

I said something that you disagree with, although I see nothing in what I said which conflicts with what you say, but so what. You disagree with me so I must, by definition, be a fool.

That is what the dictionary says isn't it? One of the definitions? Fool = someone who Mark Harrigan disagrees with? Right?

Damn, but it must be nice to be you.

I called you a fool, Mr Harper, because you proffered an opinion, based not only on being ill informed but being too lazy to take the time to inform yourself. No more, no less.

I called you wrong, because on the evidence, which was made available to you - you were in error. There is no "opinion" about it.

Which bit do you have trouble understanding?

"Which bit do you have trouble understanding?"

That's easy, your demonstrated, and repeated, need to spew abuse about people you disagree with.

"It is late and I can't really make the effort"

Too late to learn something but not too late to stop arguing from ignorance.

Yes Chris, I am ignorant. You are right. I am also a fool, as has been pointed out by Mark.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~incntr/publications/perspectives/v14/stackpole.pdf

I quote:
“Carbon dioxide emissions per capita from energy use measured over two times greater in the East as compared to the west in 1987…Total amounts dropped in the East after unification so that in 1993 these emissions were the same in the East and West.”

The population of the GDR was 16 million people and of the Federal Republic was 63 million at the time of reunification in 1990.

If per capita production in the West was X then the West produced 63 million X and the east produced 16x2 or 32 million X, giving a total of 95 million X.

16 as a percentage of 93 is 17.2. So, assuming that GDR production was at least the same in 1990 as it was in 1987 (a not unreasonable assumption given how indifferent the Soviet system was to environmental concerns) by 1993 the emissions of united Germany fell by 17.2% over what they had been in 1990 just from the closure of East German industry alone.

The level of industrial production in the East fell by 50% in that same time.

Mark gives the 1990 emissions figure as 1.02 gigatonnes, meaning that this removed .176 gigatonnes from the total, giving .844 Gt by 1993/4. The current level, as given by Mark, of .81 Gt , on that basis, is not as impressive a fall as it sounds, especially given that these figures above make no provision for Eastern efficiency gains in years after 1993.

Any emission figures for Germany, or any part of the Russian sphere, which span 1990 to 1995 (roughly) will receive a massive boost from the closure of Soviet era industry.

"...Enter the troll. Small pathetic little people hell-bent on getting attention by slagging off, sledging or just being boring..."

Remind you of anyone Philip?

Yes, Allan, Catherine Deveny
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/wrong-deveny-twitter-is-not-just-passing-notes-20100505-u7nb.html
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/dont-take-this-out-of-context-but-deveny-is-full-of-it?from=news.com.au

No doubt someone of your education would considerable her both a mental and moral giant.

Mr Dowling again his demonstrates his failure to argue logically or understand how ad-hominem works, not to mention reverse arguing from Authority.

I'll try and spell it out.

Allan quoted from a recent article by Deveny which made some valid points about internet trolls, their moral and intellectual vacuity and how it is best to ignore them.

Mr Dowling attacks Allan on the basis that Ms Deveney is no "intellectual giant" and has, in the past made extremely reprehensible and personal attacks on others - which at the time were widely condemened and for which she was removed from her then poistion at Fairfax.

Mr Dowling clearly fails to understand that (a) Allan was not claiming Ms Deveney was an authority or a moral guide and was therefore right - rather he was pointing to her arguments on the topic and that (b) poitning to Ms Deveney's personal failings elsewhere is no valid argument in relation to the issue at point.

Unless and until Mr Dowling learns to appreciate these differences his arguments and points will continue to be porrly made and dismissed as carping irrelevance.

The fact that Mr Dowling finished with a personal slur demonstrates how far he has to go to improve in this regard

Mark,
It is clear that your a sexist misogynist.
Your comment questions Catherine Deveny's moral and intellectual abilities.
When one reads between the lines, you merely see a reflection of your prejudicial attitudes and a prior opinions and conclusions.
However I am sure that you find this process quite cathartic.
How often do you find that you need to repalce your keyboard by the way?

Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.

However Mr Dowling's non-sequitur reply has done the job for me

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Mark, mens tuus gravatus fortasse sum.

Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseveare

But all means keep on demonstrating your foolishness. I'm sure none of us can stop you Mr Dowling

Mark, You missed the obvious syntax error. Now I that know that you can't read Latin, or you would have corrected me.