Sean, probably many fewer than are claimed by competent academics working on weapons projects for various defence organisations. After all, Oppenheimer, Szilard and co were academics.

my prediction made 15 days ago has come true:
https://theconversation.edu.au/on-tree-rings-co2-levels-and-the-pliocene-8474

"We had Hamilton twist the knife of irrationality into valid scientific uncertainty, now more misinformation from Herr Glikson. That can only mean an article from the other member of The Con's Troika of climate alarm Stephen Lewandowski is forth coming.
The Moe, Larry and Curly of climate alarm, except not as credible as their namesakes."

Now that Larry has provided another piece of misinformation I guess the baton gets passed back to Curly.

Nice one Marc - I guess that makes you Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day" - you keep turning up, regular as clockwork, saying the same thing over and over and over and over . . .

A cynical weatherman, I can live with that. As to the reruns of the three stooges, would the curators at the con please spare us all another repeat.

"A cynical weatherman "

Oh no, that is far to brief a description, far more accurate would be "A cynical weatherman living in a fiction".

At least that puts you on a par with Anthony Watts.

Yeah abuse from someone not prepared to their real name to it. Do you have Another wet sponge? Perhaps one with nitric acid this time?

Distributed power is efficient!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You have to be joking.

Large power plants, whatever their fuel, be it gas, coal or wind are most efficient because the capital expense includes optimisation of technology to reduce fuel usage to a miniumum. Small windmills are hopeless toys, prone to breakage and losses due to low voltage transmission, small hydroplants are toys that stop in Australian summers, PV panels are electrically noisy and intermittent power production plays havoc with the grid and wave and geothermal power doesn't work yet.

Anybody pontificating that governments should pull the pin on fossil fuel energy until there is viable renewable power is deluded, because if they had their way, mass starvation would be sure and follow.

And, Mr Hendrickx, it was my pleasure to give you a + tick. For the first time ever, you are +Blue 1.

Gerard Dean

"Yeah abuse from someone not prepared to their real name to it. "

*rolls eyes*

I am sure we have had this debate before. Online I have been known as Grendel since MIRC and earlier chat programs, hell, even from pre-web bulletin boards using Telnet, I'm quite comfortable that the name reflects who I am and presents a traceable and transparent view of my views over a very long period of time. Say for example that the name you saw was in fact "Martin Williams" would that tell you anything at all about me? Would you even know if that was my real name? No, so don't come the "anonymous is bad" line. The Conversation does not guarantee anyone is who they say they are so we have to operate on trust, and a consistent use of any profile.

It merely indicates to me that you are living in a closet, and apparently have been doing so for some time.

Here's the policy of the site:

"We require real names. Contributors who want to comment must use their real names when signing up for an account on The Conversation (unless signing in using third-party services, such as Facebook or Twitter). Organisation representatives creating accounts also must use their own names. Requiring real names helps us maintain a transparent and credible forum for discussion and debate. We reserve the right to delete comments made from profiles with partial names or aliases."

As you hold this policy in contempt I have requested the "Curators' no longer accepts your comments.

Hi Misha (Managing Editor The Con),
Quick one for you.Apparently The Con's policy on comments includes the following requirement:

"We require real names. Contributors who want to comment must use their real names when signing up for an account on The Conversation (unless signing in using third-party services, such as Facebook or Twitter). Organisation representatives creating accounts also must use their own names. Requiring real names helps us maintain a transparent and credible forum for discussion and debate. We reserve the right to delete comments made from profiles with partial names or aliases."

In light of this requirement can you please explain why the posts of "Grendelus Malleolus Senior Nerd " are still permitted in this form? Either The Con adheres to its editorial standards or it doesn't. In relation to Grendelus Malleolus perhaps you could post the real name in brackets so we can all know who we are conversing with.

Regards
Marc Hendrickx

Marc Hendrickx: "The Con's policy on comments ... "We require real names.""
Interesting. First, define "real" in this context.
If memory serves, we're entitled to use any name we like (Deed Poll is just a convenient way of informing the community of what we'd like to use). If the policy limits that right, then I doubt it has any validity in law.

It indicates to me you cannot read: "unless signing in using third-party services, such as Facebook or Twitter"

Now look at the grey text under my name, how do I log in?

There is more than a slight contradiction here, which I'm sure the "curators" will consider. If you like to make anonymous comments then perhaps try The Drum. I understood the standards of accountability were higher here, perhaps I was mistaken.

The policy is what it is. If the curators here want to accept any old trash logged in by Facebook, so be it.

First I think it is an issue they have already considered, as it's specifically addressed in the policy statement, second, as has been pointed out by others, a Gmail account is no real confirmation of identity. I'm not claiming you are not Marc Hendrikx - your comments here are entirely consistent with your comments on other parts of the Internet. Thwt is partly my point - my "Grendel" profile is used by me everywhere, and my comments are also consistent across the net, so who else do you need me to be? If I change my profile name then I split my net personality.

"coral sea campaign" - as mentioned by Andrew Bolt in his blog on June 14. You do not have to go far to find out where this crap comes from.

Off topic but here are some actual facts.
http://www.protectourcoralsea.org.au/media/transfer/doc/protect_our_coral_sea_coalition_myth_buster_fact_sheet_july_2012.pdf

Murray - I think I understand the arguments from 'the other side'. They arise from a belief that government gets in the way of people creating and doing stuff, and that it is funded by confiscating money from people. Bigger government bad, smaller government good.

Climate change is evidence that unregulated economic activity doesn't always work for our benefit, and that government needs to step in to change the game.

Climate change denial is a triumph of ideology over pragmatism - some people will invent any nonsense to justify hanging on to their belief that individuals should be left alone to pursue their own interests.

Well said Gil,

http://anthillonline.com/making-plants-happy-lands-geomite-biomineral-second-place-in-anthills-smart-100/

This South Aussie developed a product that could save millions of animals both land and marine in Australia but our Ministers vetoed his attempts to trial here in OZ.

Quote from Barry Hayes...

"Efforts to demonstrate by trial and to have the patent taken up in Australia have met with so much Government resistance via bureaucracy that manufacture is being taken up by a Belgian company operating in Indonesia. A last request for the system - known as biomineral agriculture - to be trialed in Australia was made to Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Windsor. Both failed to acknowledge. A trial proposal for the Murray Darling Basin in 2008 was vetoed by Minister Wong, presumably on advice from bureaucracy - the minister refused outright to meet with us. More recently the Queensland Government have refused a trial proposal, even though biomineral technology will eliminate fertilizer leaching to the Reef.
In all this, I've found we have become a country which has lost it's way and is dictated to by misapplied bureaucracy."

Yet on here we have stooges defending these pollies?

"It short, it makes plants happy. Or, to use Hayes’ words, it just helps them do their thing: “I realised that plants possess a powerful intelligence that they use to manipulate soil microbiology in order to feed and medicate themselves.”"

And no-one would take this guy seriously? I can't work it out.

Gerard, your "logic" is breathtaking.
Talk about a "chilling inversion of reality", and seeking "to frighten, rather than inform".
You've twisted reasoned advocacy for energy conservation and carbon pricing into nailing the good Professor for 3.2 billion deaths in under six months - undoubtedly a new record, by a vast margin, even by the bloody standards of human mass murderers.
You've done yourself and this discussion proud.

I'm not aware of anyone - and definitely not Pr. Lewandowsky - seriously proposing the immediate cessation of the use of fossil fuels. Plenty of reasonable proposals for a transition over a few decades. What we've gotten so far are watered down, inadequate and compromised policies due to the lack of bipartisan input and support. The opposition that resulted in those compromises in turn becomes the basis of ongoing criticism - for being compromised. Clever and efficient politics but without regard for the costs to our future security and prosperity.

The failure of the LNP to treat the climate problem seriously has given us two decades of insufficient backing for renewables on a scale suited to the task and even left nuclear energy without any sincere and serious backers for a role as part of proposed solutions. Again, a circumstance of their own making that, for the sake of political expediency they are effective at blaming on others.

Bob. Dean is in the latter stages of the typical troll death spiral. He started with the usual "look at moi, look at moi" comments. Because most people now know what to expect and simply ignore him, he has started to ramp up the lunacy in order to get noticed. Sad really.

Gentlemen

So you think I am crazy. Well just wait until next month when Zero Carbon Australia release their ZCA 2022 Transport Plan.

Zero Carbon Australia is a creation of the Melbourne Energy Institute which is run by Professor Sandiford, (a good bloke and a frequent contributor to The Conversation) and funded by the University of Melbourne.

The Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Stationary Power plan released 2 years ago said that Australia could replace ALL of it's fossil fuel electrical generation within 10 years. 2 years down the track and not one of their fantasies has come to fruition.

In September they will release the ZCA2022 Transport Plan. Again, they say that Australia can replace virtually ALL fossil fuel transport fuel usage with renewables by 2022. In the meantime, they use JetA1 fuel to fly around the world on "study tours" and getting rescued from cliffs by hydrocarbon burning rescue helicopters.

A 10 year forced transformation of all electrical generation and transport fuels from fossil to renewable would be a massive shock to the Australian economy, culture and society.

I hope you all study their report and let's rejoin our spirited discussion again.

Thank you

Gerard Dean

Ken

I accept your point that Professor Lewandowsky didn't say we should stop using fossil fuels instantly. . However, the aim of my comment was to highlight two issues raised by the Professor's article.

Firstly, many people do not realise how dependent we are on fuels and minerals to supply essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, hospitals and transport. The Victorian Health minister is trying to score points from the Federal government, but the hospitals are run by brown coal fired electricity, not wind turbines.

Secondly, all sources of energy, be they fossil, nuclear or renewable have costs and benefits. Fossil fuels are dangerous to extract (coal mining especially) and polluting, nuclear is safer to use than coal but leaves highly radio active waste that lasts hundreds of thousands of years. Renewables such as hydropower come at the cost of dammed rivers, wind turbines cannot provide baseload power and blight the landscape (I like them) , solar panels are a joke and geo thermal and wave energy don't work yet.

Overall, fossil fuels are a huge benefit to the well being of mankind, far outweighing the accepted pollution risk.

Thats all I wanted to say

Thanks

Gerard Dean

Ha....couldn't agree more Gerard Dean.

I looked at that ZCA paper and rolled around laughing my head off. While China etc are building another coal fired power station every week of the year, here we have the author of this article and his followers attacking trivial matters in comparison.

Pollution needs to be managed granted, but it will always be there and it's not our fault Gerard if many on here cannot accept the facts.

ETS' schemes overseas have been abused and led to increased carbon pollution. Have a listen to this lateline segment.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3331364.htm

The ultimate costs of the huge benefits of fossil fuels are something climate science tells us will harm our most essential industry - agriculture - and will be effectively irrreversible. Continuing to expand their use will deliver short term benefits ultimately at a cost we cant' afford - and those costs will come due within the lives of people now living. Truly a poisoned chalice model for enhancing global prosperity.

You think the benefits outweigh the 'risks' of continuing the fossil fuel model but that's not what the science tells us - and it's not a small risk of great harm ultimately resulting but near certainty.

Rather than be guided by that science we have a big chunk of mainstream politics that finds it to their electoral benefit to undermine public trust in that science simultaneously with attacking proponents of an energy transitions that are guided by it - for being irresponsible! If that isn't pot calling kettle black I don't know what is.

Meanwhile the real joke about solar panels is that they are currently being cited by the electricity industry as a significant reason no new coal or gas capacity is required and why a major grid upgrade like the Bonshaw to Lismore line is being put on the back burner. That's solar installed in a period of on again off again government policy, into an energy grid that it's operators have done their heels dragging best to avoid making suitable for it.

Point taken Ken. The real shame in this present phoney either-or scenario being painted for us is that there is so much scope for saving energy - i.e. saving money - in standard, well-known and proven energy conservation measures as Lewandowsky notes above. People greatly underestimate how much energy we waste now and how much we could reduce consumption simply by attacking that waste: e.g. this recent Cambridge study suggests that "73% of global energy use could be saved by practically achievable design changes to passive systems". And they reckon they're being conservative.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es102641n

I read this:

"And what have you done to help the planet except denigrate those who strive to provide real solutions to environmental problems?"

And then I read this:

"I looked at that ZCA paper and rolled around laughing my head off. While China etc are building another coal fired power station every week of the year, here we have the author of this article and his followers attacking trivial matters in comparison"

Pot, meet Kettle, you should get along famously!

Bob

You make an excellent point, but before I cover it, I reiterate, the either-or scenario is not solely down to my contention. Many fervent believers in sustainable living have no idea how much their lifestyle depends on energy. I do agree however, that we won't be turning the oil tap off for many years.

Now, back to your excellent point. Energy savings are hugely sensible. When next you fly into Melbourne (yes, I burn JetA1 fuel myself) at night, look at how many lights are on. I imagine that only 0.1% of the lighting energy is actually doing something useful, the rest is spraying into space and holes and walls. Gas ducted heating is another disaster. I was bought up on a wheat farm where the kitchen stove heated the kitchen. Our bedrooms were freezing. Now, my family throw a mental when I turn off the ducted heating that heats our whole house.

But there is a problem with efficiency and humans. The latest Airbus A380 uses about a third of the energy per passenger as the 1960's Boeing 707, which is great. The problem is that 60 years on, we now use nearly 100 times the amount of JetA1 fuel as in the 1960's. For humans, greater efficiency means lower prices (lower price airfares) which leads to even great consumption.

I don't think we will become sustainable until we suck the last litre of oil out of old mother earth.

Thanks

Gerard Dean

Hey Wade

I notice those pesky Red Tickers are at your comments. I often get them as well. But, nobody, but nobody racks up the Red Ticks like Mr Hendrickx. I sometimes wonder that if I was a German soldier in Von Paulus 6th Army in Stalingrad in December 1942, the person I would like next to me would be Kamaraden Hendrickx.

Back to the topic. Yes, you too have read the weepingly sad Zero Carbon Australia 2020 report. Well, they are going to have another try, this time with Transport. They say that we can replace all the liquid fuel with either electric vehicles, rail electrification or bio-diesels derived from crops etc. I did the maths and worked out that we would have to turn ALL of our agricultural land over to oil crops to make 70% of our fuel requirements. Sure, we could drive our car or tractor, but we won't have anything to eat.

Keep up the good work.

Gerard Dean

Yes Gerard, this site is full of some looney idealists who have an agenda to place bans/draconian legislation before sound management on almost everything human. Perhaps part of the green parties internet task force that was set up a while back? Perhaps not?

I couldn't give a rats about the ticks either way...tick away people.....it's your time your wasting....not mine.

Wade, would you mind explaining what is loony about using energy more efficiently, saving money and moving over to clean energy sources?

It's noticeable that most people that have reasonable grounds for concern about AGW are prepared to admit they could be wrong whereas people like yourself refuse to even consider the possibility, apparently. If I'm wrong, my apologies.

William, typing in caps and invoking conspiracy theories only makes you seem like you've swallowed the creationists book of baloney 101 in one gulp.

How about providing some evidence to support assertions?

A link showing what you say is just a conspiracy theory.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3331364.htm

How about elaborating on what you think this conspiracy theory really is?