As a lawyer I have some difficulty with responding to the question: Do you believe in climate change? My (albeit somewhat limited) reading on the subject causes me to consider that, on a balance of probabilities, the evidence suggests that human activity is affecting the world's climate. However, I'm always open to reconsidering the issue if convincing evidence is presented to the contrary. To date, such convincing evidence is clearly lacking. I suggest that climate change is probably occurring, and there is an onus on all humans to do as much as possible to reduce its impact.

Brian

May I suggest both sides of the 'debate' are in agreement that climate change IS occurring. The facts cannot be interpreted otherwise. The 2 sides are whether the cause of climate change is anthropocentric activity (and hence currently headed only one way) or a periodic solar induced situation.

As an answer, I point you to Principle #15 of the Rio Convention...

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

So, until the opposing views are resolved (irrespective of the side we stand), we choose to implement policies that serve to reverse the potential for environmental degradation.

Cheers

Blair

You essentially make 2 observations.

1/.

A distinction between two beliefs (for and against), and lay the 'cause' for the opponents as "not objectively assessing the available evidence". You may be quite right.

I also see another 'cause'; cognitive dissonance. Like smokers continuing to smoke even though they know of the consequences, it is likely that some people will largely accept the dominantly accepted view about climate change but not want to involve themselves in the necessary adaptive behaviour.

When pushed, these people may instead point to the alternate view or that the matter is yet to be fully settled, etc. These people are not naysayers, rather don't want to lose their luxuries.

2/.

The strident voice of the political right.

In many respects, the 'left' (as you call them) is the centre and currently this group is in the position to enact climate change policy. Also, I think you may have overlooked that it is also the bureaucracy that turns the wheels of political action. And, by and large, the bureaucrats appear not to be supporting rightist positions.

It must be said that a political party has to both appeal to the masses and also define itself with core voters. Speaking more to the interests of capital than society, the right seems to think they can gain brownie votes by negating the current debate on climate change. It may be they are also aggregating support from those who really don't like the prospect of enforced climate change adaptation.

Cheers

Blair,
Given the sweeping nature of this statement, I presume that you must be right wing. Am I correct?

Philip, in my earlier years I was a liberal voter, later on for a variety of reasons I switched to the left and now I look for rational, truly independent independents even though they are unfortunately, scarce as hens teeth - most independents seem to be stooges for one or other of the main parties. I think anybody welded to a particular party, left or right, has rocks in the their head.

About the only thing I respect is critical thinking and science which usually go hand-in-hand and as I said to Nancy, I'm happy to defer to expert in a particular field rather than the rantings of paranoid amateurs, particularly when those amateurs are driven by inane conspiracy theories.

I hope I have answered your question.

Conventional sciencific belief, based on a consensus, has been proven wrong many many times in the past. To believe that science is always right is dangerous thinking. To think that all science, including applied science is benevolent in nature is also dangerous thinking. The atomic bomb is proof of that.

Ian your statement is completely flawed and an example of the anti-science sentiment that is seeking to drag society backward.

First of all, you are assuming that science gets things wrong. That is incorrect thinking. The understanding of the science, the way it is observed is what is flawed. The instances where the "consensus" have been proved incorrect have actually been due to better evidence, usually actual evidence. The most famous instances, such as Galileo, were instances where science replaced belief, meaning that up until then there had not been any science involved in the "consensus".

Secondly you are assuming that a consensus has something to do with scientists/people rather than evidence. Evidence decides the consensus.

Thirdly you are trying to belittle understanding and knowledge because those things may be misused. You see the atomic bomb as proof that discovering nuclear physics was a bad thing. Well that is completely narrow minded. If you, or anyone you know, have ever had medical imaging done, then you owe an apology for your incredibly petty view point. Most would agree that the internal combustion engine is a good thing (use of fossil fuel power aside), but that does not mean that someone won't misuse it by putting it in a tank to kill people with.

Tim, you have misconstrued my meaning in the most negative way possible.
Science can get things wrong when it is based on belief and consensus. Charles Darwin was loathe to publish his work on human evolution because he knew it would not be well recieved in the academies of science and the religious institutions of the time. Consensus is defined as 1. majority of opinion (The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.) 2. general agreement or concord; harmony. It seems that not accepting the consensus viewpoint and expressing that causes massive disharmony, oh well such is life.

Science and technology are benign (neither good nor bad) but it is the intent and/or application that shifts the balance and having the threat of nuclear holocaust hanging over our heads for generations is...

When people quote Galileo as an example of people refusing to accept evidence because of a prior belief, it generally indicates a lack of scientific literacy as Copernicus wrote "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium" well before Galileo.

http://galileo.rice.edu/chron/europe.html

Ian, of course science can get things wrong but that's how we learn. The underlying methodology of science is designed to eliminate errors as much as possible but I think you would be hard-pressed to find a science or a scientist in any field who hasn't made mistakes somewhere along the line.

That said, as Sue has pointed out, consensus on particular subjects is generally arrived at as more evidence accumulates.

Science doesn't require belief, only understanding and an acceptance of the evidence, even if it disagrees with your preconceived notions or pet ideas.

Well,
I'm a climate change sceptic, which means I have looked at the evidence sceptically and come to the conclusion that the atmosphere is warming and that it is most likely due to human activity via the release of Carbon compounds. To think otherwise would not be sceptical but ignorant or self deluded.
No belief about it at all, happy to be proven wrong, happy to keep burning hydrocarbons if I can. In the interim, until the vast weight of expert opinion or evidence swings the other way, perhaps we should behave as if anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and occurring fast...

Agreed. I'd argue skepticism is the mark of a good scientist and good science. It certainly beats reading chicken entrails and wishful thinking.

Or reading cat's paws:
http://www.readfearn.com/2012/07/greenhouse-gas-theory-disproved-with-two-fish-boxes-and-a-roll-of-cling-film/
"Like the time when TV station Channel Seven, for example, chose a “climate expert” who, as it later turned out, had once written a book called “Pawmistry” describing how reading your cat’s paws could reveal their unique character."

Sadly both my dogs are Virgos and as everyone knows their paws just lie.

Both Virgos, Peter? So, no puppies then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuRvBoLu4t0

I urge anyone who thinks all science is worthy and nuclear weapon development didn't cause some regrets among the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project. Look at the sadness, the regret in the eyes of the brilliant man, Robert J. Oppenheimer. Do you think he was proud of their achievement? Do you think he was bragging when he quoted the Bhagavad Gita?

They felt it was their duty, they felt it was a necessary evil. I have to ask the question, is there any such thing, any possible way that evil is necessary? To combat a greater evil? Surely that requires a righteous anger and a good heart, with knowledge of the damage done to oneself and pity for those led astray and onto an evil path? It's the little valued quality of empathy that defines us as human, in my humble opinion. R J Oppenheimer displayed it, many do not, in the modern world.

Few would dispute that the development of nuclear weapons has been of detriment to the world, but it has to be considered in the context of when and why it was done.

And what, exactly, is the relevance of this comment to this topic?

One could equally well point to the great contributions science has made to human well being - from the invention of sanitation through to the discovery of anibiotics and many other things besides - the list is practically endless.

Science, being a human endeavour, is subject to frailties and misuse - but would you seriously argue we would better off without it? Try and imagne a world still subject to the dictates of a clergy intent on keeping the masses ignorant and illiterate and willing to persecute genuine seekers of truth - an appelation which you wear but do not appear to follow.

I feel genuinely sorry for someone with such a dismal world view Ian

Err, Galileo had no problems with Copernicus's evidence.

It was the Church which took issue with Galileo.

Ian. You say "beliefs require faith". That would be my point of departure - my beliefs require evidence.

For example you claim "I believe that a great portion of any recorded global warming is attributable to increased solar intensity"

That is something we can and do measure.
"Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. "
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Does your belief system allow you to change your mind when the facts do not support your beliefs?

Mike, the first sentence is fairly close to how I think as well and I have done the research, looked at the evidence and now I need faith in my ability to interpret all of that evidence into these 10 points, although these are just 10 points and not 100% inclusive and my research may seem inadequate but I can assure you I did the very best I could with the tools available to me and with good intent.

The bit about solar activity, well all I can do is provide a link to a page with information that shows that solar activity must be increasing as the visible evidence has nothing to do with greenhouse effect or human activity.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/warming.htm

I think I answered your final question in my opening paragraph.

Mike I did read the page you linked to, please allow me time to digest and re-read and do more research before I draw or change any conclusions based solely on that page. It would be a courtesy as well if you could take the time to read the page I linked. Thank you.

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

Long-term CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

CO2 vs global surface temps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Solar irradiance vs global surface temps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Changes_in_mean_solar_irradiance_and_mean_global_surface_temperature_on_Earth_since_the_year_1978.png
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Gary, you have a lot of links at your fingertips but what is that supposed to prove exactly?
If solar intensity is decreasing and signs of warming are visible on planets further from the sun than Earth, what is the cause? Is it shifts in hyperdimensional energy (which sounds a bit whacky, without further research) or is it possible it might be something more localised?

I really don't have the time to read all the material you linked to at this point in time, my mind is focused on achieving something important to deal with another 'problem' we are facing. I hope you can understand that.

"hyperdimensional energy (which sounds a bit whacky ..."

Ian - it does not just sound wacky, it is wacky. I can understand why you are attracted to climate science denialism.

The source of these crank ideas is this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland

"Richard Charles Hoagland is an American author, and a proponent of various conspiracy theories about NASA, lost alien civilizations on the Moon and on Mars and other related topics.
His writings claim that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the Moon, Mars and on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and that NASA and the United States government have conspired to keep these facts secret."

Mike,

One of the mistakes we make when dealing with deeply irrational people is to try and explain or use reason with them. This simply feeds their sense of conspiracy and their quixotic delusions. They need to be taken seriously. They hunger for it. It's the argument they love.

Seriously, have a read of that APA paper - its sets out an interesting and useful framework for dealing with them. Reason and fact is not an option.

I'm sorry you feel that way Peter (The inference that I am deeply irrational is what I am refering to here.) as we have had some reasonable conversations on other subjects on this site. Why does everyone think I am a "skeptic" just because I have doubts about the veracity of the science presented and the efficacy of a carbon tax. These seem perfectly reasonable positions to me.

To Mark.
The site I refered you to had visible, checkable evidence of a phenomena that has not been well explained by anyone. I said the conclusions they drew sounded whacky because it's the first time I have ever heard of "hyperdimensional enrgy shifts" and I am loathe to dismiss something out of hand just because I don't understand it. I could comment about the site you refered me to and the evidence it presented, but my prediction was right and I really don't want to get into a slinging match. I did however, in my original post sugest that increased solar intensity, not increased solar activity, may be a contributing factor. I think there is a difference, even if you don't. But that's a debate for another time, it's late and I'm tired and I get cranky when I'm tired and that's not good. Goodnight, sleep tight.

All of these red marks for speaking my mind in a non-aggressive manner?
I bet most of them didn't even bother reading the entire comment before passing judgement.
Nobody has asked the obvious question, so I guess no-one wants to know why I think the science was flawed?

I don't want to know why you think the science is flawed - I want to know ON WHAT BASIS you express that opinion.

First, please tell us your training and experience in the physical sciences, in original research, research methods and data analysis.

The please take us through how the data were collected and analysed, and your critique of the methodology.

How dare you suggest that I am unqualified to pass comment on this article Sue, I may be unqualified to perform medical procedures but this is an open forum and the last time I checked (hard to say for sure these days) I am entitled to express my opinion and beliefs especially when the article purports to discuss beliefs.
Who are you anyway, besides a fancy title that could mean nurse?
My father raised me never to accept anything on face value and don't be afraid to ask questions, as a result I have spent the best part of 50 years reading, asking questions, looking at details, finding out how things are done and how things work (and why things don't work like they should). I am also formally trained in Botany and I know the way plants transpire and remove carbon from CO2 and why.
I have read scientific papers Sue. I just recently read a scientific paper titled Comparing yields of conventional and organic farming. I thought that paper was flawed as well, why? because what they were calling organic systems, included systems I would call 'natural' or subsitence farming. They also relied on Organic farmers to tell them if they were using 'best practices organics", people being what they are, of course people will want to answer yes, even if they aren't. As there was no definition of best practices organics, who is to say what that means anyway? This led to flawed conclusions, in my opinion and the end results, in the form of % were skewed towards conventional farming. The paper also managed to totally ignore the harmful effects of chemical fertilizers on water (aquifer and riverine) quality and riverine ecology, as well as the damage done by the 'conventional' practice of over-tilling on soil life-forms and soil quality. Very skewed, very flawed. Bad science.
I believe the sampling was flawed, I believe the hockey stick predicted in the modelling was exaggerated and I believe the tree ring sampling is very flawed because I know that trees need more than 'warm periods' for plant growth and that plant growth can be disrupted or lessened by many things.

First, please tell us your training and experience in the physical sciences, in original research, research methods and data analysis.
I tried, I lost my connection and lost a half hour's typing, now I can't be bothered, mainly because you are so rude.

And who writes wikipedia ?

Obviously just more people who are part of the vast global conspiracy.

At one stage, West Ryde had been moved to the North Shore in Sydney. For three months, students at Manly High School had a rather interesting of their school accepted as reliable as some of the earlier quoted urls.
In fact, all one has to do is to create a website or two, load it up with your own "facts" and then use them as references for your wikipedia editing.

Sea Level Rise (long term)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_levels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Glacier Thickness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
Oceanic Heat Content:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Arctic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage

Antarctic Temperatures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_Temperature_Trend_1981-2007.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica

Yes Marc. Those climate change deniers are overly influential.

yes you certainly are!

By the way what's with the new pic? A two fingered salute to the rest of us? And no mention of your place of work? WUWT!

"a small number of misguided activists"

Is this who you were thinking of Marc

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences

Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

It is a universal sign for my appreciation of a genre of music. It is not a "two fingered salute". I suggest you watch the documentaries by Sam Dunn to understand the sign's origins.

And you'll notice that I'm logged in using Facebook. I'll only be using my account here for articles to keep it easier for me.

Ahh a head banger, well that explains a lot.

No I had activists like you in mind. Those who thoughtlessly cut and paste from the kookite bible.

You might like to ask the chief priest to update that list. The link for instance to the GSA statement no longer works  because its members (I am one) objected strongly to its alarmist contents and it was withdrawn. Those statements are not written in concrete and as the models continue to mismatch the observations I predict more of those statements will be re-written, much to the embarrassment of recent executive officers.

 You add the network of African banana republics your cut and paste list.   Let's see if there is anyone amongst the fellows of the Cameroon, Sudan, Ugandan, Nigerian Academies etc etc with the  necessary background and expertise to  make a sound judgement on climate change attribution or are they just jumping on a funding band wagon?

Nope couldn't find one name amongst those academy fellows that featured prominently in the climate change literature. I guess they don't want to rock that un ipcc boat that pays for those tropical holidays.

Racist garbage not worth responding to!

Yes, metal fans tend to be smarter and more creative, much like "classical" music fans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2007/mar/21/whymetalfansarebrainier
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2680987/Heavy-metal-and-classical-music-fans-share-personality-traits.html

Many more broken links there. Here's one that worked...Note that the lack of alarm. Not that Mike would notice, he sees what he wants to see.

Adopted 2 June 2004

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) notes that human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is significantly contributing to the warming of the global climate. The climate system is complex, however, making it difficult to predict detailed outcomes of human-induced change: there is as yet no definitive theory for translating greenhouse gas emissions into forecasts of regional weather, hydrology, or response of the biosphere. As the AGU points out, our ability to predict global climate change, and to forecast its regional impacts, depends directly on improved models and observations.

Nothing racist there. Here is what was stated....More misrepresentation from the kookite king.

 You add the network of African banana republics your cut and paste list.   Let's see if there is anyone amongst the fellows of the Cameroon, Sudan, Ugandan, Nigerian Academies etc etc with the  necessary background and expertise to  make a sound judgement on climate change attribution or are they just jumping on a funding band wagon?

Nope couldn't find one name amongst those academy fellows that featured prominently in the climate change literature. I guess they don't want to rock that un ipcc boat that pays for those tropical holidays.

Keep up Marc,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/apr/23/southern-africa-climate-research-centre

http://www.wascal.org/

or have a look at what the World Bank is doing:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/0,,contentMDK:22410211~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258644,00.html

The slide show multi-media thing (bottom right) is worth a look.

The conspirators are everywhere....

Nothing racist - just ignorant.

You don't delve too deeply do you Peter. None of the links are to peer reviewed papers in credible journals. The first link is to a German funded research program not surprisingly dominated by German researchers. Keep it up mate, you are not ignorant just intellectually shallow.

No it's Friday night ... but I never delve too deeply when discussing climate change with geologists.

Now had you read both the South African and West African clips I forwarded to you you would see that so far some 17 African nations have established climate research centres this year - ALL with German dough... Soon there will be a torrent of data and analysis coming out of Africa. They have some pretty sharp scientists over there actually, just no organisation. Now they do.

the conspiracy is everywhere Marc...

The World Bank one is even scarier.

Tentacles everywhere. Sleep tight.

Tim, you really shouldn't believe the headlines. The terms "not hard working" and, "low self esteem" seem more appropriate. Seems Jazz/Blues fans are the most intelligent!

The first study...
"The researchers surveyed 1,057 members of the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth - a body whose 120,000 student members are within the top five per cent academically in the 11-19 age range.
Asked for their favourite type of music, 39 per cent said rock, 18 per cent R&B and 14 per cent pop. Six per cent said heavy metal and a third rated it in their top five genres." "The heavy metal fans in the study had lower self-esteem and more difficulties in family relationships and friendships."
via...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3352230/Heavy-metal-a-comfort-for-the-bright-child.html
So 6% of the gifted prefer HM, as opposed to 71% who preferred something else.

The second study, nicely summarised by the SMH seems to suggest you have as much in common with Classical as you do with Indie.
http://blogs.smh.com.au/noisepollution/archives/2008/09/music_is_you.html

MUSICAL STYLES VERSUS PERSONALITY TRAITS

CLASSICAL MUSIC High self-esteem, creative, introvert and at ease
ROCK/HEAVY METAL Low self-esteem, creative, not hard-working, not outgoing, gentle, at ease
BLUES High self-esteem, creative, outgoing, gentle and at ease
JAZZ High self-esteem, creative, outgoing and at ease
RAP High self-esteem, outgoing
OPERA High self-esteem, creative, gentle
COUNTRY AND WESTERN Hardworking, outgoing
REGGAE High self-esteem, creative, not hardworking, outgoing, gentle and at ease
DANCE Creative, outgoing, not gentle
INDIE Low self-esteem, creative, not hard working, not gentle
BOLLYWOOD Creative, outgoing
CHART POP High self-esteem, not creative, hardworking, outgoing, gentle, not at ease
SOUL High self-esteem, creative, outgoing, gentle, at ease

Let me get this straight: you're telling me not to read the headlines or cite newspapers, then you refute my points with headlines and newspapers. Good to see you spent that 2 hours digging up a news article that said something different rather than reading the actual science.

Surprise, surprise, you haven't read the science and understood what was actually going on. To quote the author of one of the papers, Adrian North: "The general public has held a stereotype of heavy metal fans being suicidally depressed and being a danger to themselves and society in general, but they are quite delicate things. Aside from their age, they’re basically the same as a classical music fan." Cadwallader's findings were about the distribution of smart kids around their musical tastes. Metal shares more in common with "classical" and is thus more stimulating and cathartic to intelligent students. It wasn't just 6%, that is dismissive of the multi-factorial approach to the analysis and shows your ignorance of statistics.

It is also silly to confound rock and metal as a grouping. They are not the same, in fact rock has more in common with pop according to the recent research published here on musical blandness. But of course, I wouldn't expect the less intelligent and less creative sorts like yourself, Marc, to understand this.

Actually Tim the gesture in your image, when turned around (palm facing forward) is a symbol for 'The Beast'.
I like Heavy Metal as well. Have you ever listened to the lyrics of War Pigs by Black Sabbath?

Lyrics???? Black Sabbath has lyrics? Who knew.

Marc - Ignorant racist garbage designed to appeal to the same demographic that Bolt appeals to.

You brag about having influenced the GSA statement on climate change **despite having no climate science publications** but then state

" Let's see if there is anyone amongst the fellows of the Cameroon, Sudan, Ugandan, Nigerian Academies etc etc with the necessary background and expertise to make a sound judgement on climate change attribution or are they just jumping on a funding band wagon?

Nope couldn't find one name amongst those academy fellows that featured prominently in the climate change literature. I guess they don't want to rock that un ipcc boat that pays for those tropical holidays."

Vile and ignorant.

All those African academies and not a single paper in a reputable journal. Rather odd that you would regard this fact as a sign of racism. It is merely is a statement of fact. But we have seen you resort to such underhanded tactics in the past, calling names when you are out of ammo. What next another link to the Kookite literature.

Publications? In fact I have one....a modest contribution, but a contribution none the less.
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/07/rsbl.2010.0053/reply#roybiolett_el_31
Now how many do you have?

Marc,

It took two minutes to find this. Plenty there if you actually want a look - try googling "African Studies of Climate Change"

This one's a joint product with Harvard - but heck what would they know?

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic871786.files/c017p145.pdf

To find stuff out one needs to go looking. It's a fairly important principle of science that.

Here's what was stated.." You add the network of African banana republics your cut and paste list.   Let's see if there is anyone amongst the fellows of the Cameroon, Sudan, Ugandan, Nigerian Academies etc etc with the  necessary background and expertise to  make a sound judgement on climate change attribution or are they just jumping on a funding band wagon."

Your mission then, if you choose to accept it, is to locate a fellow of an African Academy with a publication in a reputable science journal. Not just an African Scientist.

The only African scientist on the paper you link to (Todd Ngara) is not a member of an African Academy of Science. 

Care to try again. 

"To find stuff out one needs to go looking. It's a fairly important principle of science that."

Another, is to check what the question is.

Peter, I'll make it easy for you. Here's a start...cross check the names in Appendix 3 of the linked report with the names of fellows of African Science Academies. Let me know if you match any.

http://start.org/download/2011/technical-report-accfp-8.2007-12.2010.pdf

Nah not really Marc ... you can remain as ignorant as you wish.

Nothing will convince you. Nothing will ever change your mind. You will never learn or make any effort to learn. This is the hallmark of prejudice. Attitudes set in stone.

Geologists... go figger.

The fruits of your labour again...

"The extent to which those rainfall variations are related to greenhouse gas induced global warming remains undetermined"

Best stick to that tractor... go digger.

Aw heck Marc, you write in Quadrant ... I didn't realise I was wasting my time so utterly.

I've re-read what you actually stated above in your dismissal of African scientists - and I reconsider my initial reaction ... not just ignorant of African science but yes racist as well. And here was I trying to make excuses for you.

So now pointing out hypocrisy is tantamount to racism, odd world you inhabit.

I'm still waiting for Mr Hendrickx to demonstate his adherence to his public statement that

""The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism."

And tackle the posts of Mr Klein who clearly violates most of these tenets.

Come on Marc! Be a Rock of principle. Stand up for what you Believe in! :)

I think Mr Klein's views were adequately addressed and I saw no need to pile on, However I'm flattered that you think my opinion worth a thought.

I have adhered to my axiom on this post pointing out the hypocrisy of the African Academies of science that do not appear to have a single Fellow qualified to comment on attribution in climate change with (apparently) no papers published in reputable journals, yet they are prepared to sign onto any old statement that appears outside their area of expertise. I wonder whether those millions of German Marks had anything to do with it. To cap it off the single paper dragged up by Peter Ormond actually contradicts the consensus statement. For this I get accused by Mike Hansen of Racism.

Do you agree or diagree with Mr Kleins comments. yes or no? It's a simple question.

If No what happened to "properly outline the errors"

Selective application of your "princples" possibly????

As stated I saw no reason to pile on. I preferred, in this case, to point out the vast misrepresentations, inaccuracies and hypocrisies of others, such as yourself.

No conviction and selective application then. Thanks for the clarification

Correcting your misrepresentations takes away from the time I might spend assisting others. You can help by not posting so much BS. If I wrote that in Aramaic would it make more sense to you?

Peter,

You have a distorted view of reality...sad really sad.

Your fighting an invisible army of disbelievers which simply doesn't exist in the numbers your arguement portrays.

It's the abuse of environmentalism and climate change measures by corporate entities, pollies that people don't believe in the majority, not whether homo erectus has had an effect.

Have a listen all the way to the end of this short video from lateline and you will see the abuse of the system used to pollute more.

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

Well I watched the Lateline clip...

Yep you have to admire the ingenuity of the corporate sector.... awlays with an eye out for the sharp angle, fiddling the books and using accountants to invent a profit.

Trouble is there is no cheating this stuff Wade. The atmosphere will just know there's more greenhouse gas about and respond accordingly.

Must admit - as I regularly do - that I am most skeptical that private enterprise and greed can actually sort this mess out. The whole idea of a tradable emissons system with offsets and the like is predicated on their honesty and sincerity. Me? I'd just shut them down. I'm more a back of the axe man myself.

But for those who think markets can solve this problem then a regulated and accountable market - that exposes the rorts as this clip shows - is essential.

There will be rorts. There will be corporations that try it on. We just have to catch them and throw the book at them. Public scrutiny and gaol terms for executives is the go.

But Wade none of the foregoing - or the Lateline piece suggests in any way that climate change isn't real, isn't a problem and isn't caused by our passion for burning stuff. Sadly.

Nancy, is there something specific about climate science that offends you or you disagree with? If so, what is it?

Do you have any qualifications pertaining to climate science? I readily admit I don't, so, just as I would not go to a mechanic if I had some concerns about my heart, I tend not to listen much to the opinions of amateurs when it comes to science, any science, but particularly important matters like climate science.

Do you have a house or car insurance? If so, why given that the odds are you are unlikely to ever need either?

Hi Blair, good point about listening to experts.

Most people talking about climate change = whether warning about AGW or thinking it's nonsense - have no expertise in climate science.

I think one issue is that climate change has entered public policy - we pay a tax, for example, to prevent what experts say will happen otherwise. So this is about money, perhaps?

But it has to be more complex than that. Lots of other issues are about money, and no-one cares. The public is happy to pay high salaries to expert engineers to design our bridges. Why are they not happy to pay a carbon tax?

I think the key problem is politics unfortunately. The science has been usurped for blatant political ends. You only need to look at the commentary from the right in the US and Australia to see how reason, data and reasonable prevention have been discarded.

I have a simple response to those who want to argue that climate science and the associated warnings are over the top, I suggest they do a little homework finding out why international insurance companies have reassessed and increased the costs of insurance cover and the US military is investing billions into mitigating the effects of AGW.

Spot on Blair - not politics in the narrow partisan sense - but values and belief systems.

In particular the notion of climate change strikes at the heart of the Panglossian notion - that we live in the best of all possible worlds - that compliance, conformity and hard work brings its rewards and those rewards will be more and bigger things.

The idea that things are not going to script - that there are limits and problems with the established order of things - is a heresy of the most existential kind.

And so we have accountants, engineers and computer technicians wailing and moaning that this cannot - must not - be true. They will not allow it. That 53 angels fit on the pinhead as any fool can see. And that this is how it always was and always will be.

Change - even the idea of it - can be most most alarming. True conservatives, clinging like limpets to their rocks.

Peter Ormonde: "... we have accountants, engineers and computer technicians wailing and moaning that this cannot - must not - be true."
Mustn't forget the geologists.

Yeah... what is it with geologists? Is it the fact that a lot of them work for mining companies? Too much time underground?

Actually I have a few mates who are geomorphologists ... looking at dynamics of landscape formation, coastlines and so forth - ongoing processes. They don't seem to share the geologists' horror at the notion of a climate being affected by human activity and that we should try and do something about it. So it's not just the rocks.

Peter Ormonde: "So it's not just the rocks." Perhaps it's the location of the rocks.

I have put thought into the idea that so many neo-cons are into denial about the impact of AGW, not so much because they believe in a great science led conspiracy (i think that is a Moby Dick of a red herring), but due to the fact they realise that for humans to have any hope of ameliorating the damage; nations, corporations, governments, councils, suburbs, neighbours will have to cooperate with each other.

The foundation of neo-con libertarianism is one of "its all about me" and is placed under threat by the very term: cooperative ventures. Transitioning to a sustainable, clean means of industry can only be achieved at the inconvenience of the arch-conservative. No wonder they are throwing everything they've got at trying to sway general population - their core ideology is being questioned and found very wanting.

Of course the threat to unregulated capitalism, that wealthy individuals and corporations are being targeted to actually pay tax, plays a huge part of the denial syndrome.

Or, it is just a mental illness.

Dianna, don't underestimate the religious connotations either. If you scratch the surface of your average climate change denialist, you'll likely find a fair bit of fundamentalist religion fuelling the flames. Certainly not in every case but many.

That's the weird thing though, they believe their particular God created everything for men (especially men) and wax lyrical about the perfect creations of this same God then happily go about trashing the environment it supposedly created for them.

It's also no surprise that people who think a God created everything have a tenuous understanding of even basic science.

Curse you Blair Donaldson, I had stopped thinking about religion for the entire afternoon.

However, I agree. Although trashing the planet is not so weird if you have the Rapture to look forward to.

:-) I have been told by more than a few creationists and fundamentalists that a jolly good rapturing (rupturing?) Is good for the soul.

Sorry for polluting your afternoon by mentioning the big G - I shall go and sacrifice a goat…

Mr Donaldson, no goats shall be sacrificed in my name!

instead I expect a night of quaffing a good red, eating of much shellfish (G hates that) and the jolly consenting rogering of your loved one.

Sleep easy Dianna, consider the goats reprieved. I shall follow your sage advice regarding the red and shellfish, the rogering bit… well… two out of three ain't bad…

Spot on Blair - it's all based on how you interpret Gensis 1, verse 26.

The original Hebrew states

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-
הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ

For which the standard translation is

"And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' "

I'm not a Hebrew scholar but the actual word used means to "rule" but is always translated as "dominion". yet if "rule" were interepted in the sense of "stewardship" - which I think makes more sense since God (if you accept the existence of a deity) must be the ultimate "owner" then the dutues of a steward to preserve and manage the "estate" on behalf of the real owner would apply.

If that interpretation were understood and accepted then fundamentalists actually have a duty to care for the planet.

Alas that is a theological nicety that is rarely examined. I also do not profess to be an expert in the matter but I find the approach of interest. Alas I also find that those with a religious zeal rarely take the time to truly examine the basis of their faith with any honesty or critical eye, probably because it is too threatening.

Perhpas a little far from the topic of this thread but given we are talking matters of belief it may be of interest

So Harrigan is now a fluent Hebrew linguist, LOL.
Blair, there are quite a few deists on the alarmist side as well, perhaps more so. Mike Hulme chief among them. The mormon Barry Bickmore another. Mike Harrigan's faith in a Gaia also paints him as strongly suspect for the worship of weird and wonderful beings.

Sigh - so many errors and deliberate mis-interpreatations - true to from Mr hendricks

1) Im Mark, not Mike

2) I explcitly renounced any claim to be a linguist in relation to hebrew - merely offered the point as one of interest (and anyone can verify my points of they wish - nand I would welcome a real hebrew scholar to elucidate/calrify)

3) I have never professed a faith in Gaia (or anything else for that matter)

4) Deism is not a disqualification from having an educated understanding of climate (on the evidence of your posts it would appear being a Geologist, however, may be)

That's 4 mis-represenattions/errors in the one 4-line post. A record even for your standard of completely mis-representing the climate science Mr Hendrickx.

And still waiting for you to stand by your stated beliefs

""The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism."

And tackle the posts of Mr Klein who clearly violates most of these tenets.

Or do you lack the courage of your convictions and are only capable of cheap (and poorely aimed) shots??

A fine dissertation Mark. Still up for that cup of coffee?

Mr Dean, given your desire to remind everyone else of the facts perhas you should attend to them - instead of your costant repitition trolling

According to the Wolrd Bank Australias per capita energy concumption is as follows (kg of oil equivalent per capita)

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE

Australia

1992- 1996 - 5,929kg

1997 - 2001 - 6,019kg

2002- 2006 - 5,971kg

2007 - 2011 - 5,643kg

That data shows a decline - so you are incorrect. It wook me less than 2 minutes to ascertain this information.

How is that you are willing to make such a claim without evidence - which turns out to be false?

In relation to your persistent drawing of attention to the use of Jet Fuel, these facts have also been pointed out to you

The emssions from jet travel are comparable on a per km travelled per individual basis to a single person travelling in a compact car.

Carbon emissions are surrounded by myths. It is widely believed that aviation is responsible for much of it. However it accounts for 1.6% of emissions.

Road transport accounts for 10% of our carbon footprint. Cars are responsible for the bulk of these emissions.

All you have proven is that you have a predisposed point of view, have no intellectual honesty with respect to the treatment of evidence, and are guilty of pseduo-skeptical irrational behaviour. You clearly have no interest in a rational discourse about the problem of AGW - just a desire to mis-represent and dissemble

Dr Harrigan

Who is deliberately mis-representing and dissembling?

I stated that Australia's energy use had continued to rise, according to the Federal Government BREE Energy 2012 Energy Australia report. (Page 20, Figure 10 - Annual Growth in Australia's Energy Consumption"

You have countered by quoting the falling 'per capita' energy use. Unfortunately Doctor, Australia's population has risen sharply during that time, resulting in, and I will repeat, A CONTINUED RISE IN TOTAL AUSTRALIAN ENERGY USE.

You were saying.

Gerard Dean

Mr Dean - are you seriously arguing that per capita figure is NOT the relevant one to use when dealing with your argument "If the majority of Australians were really"taking action" as you claim, energy consumption would have fallen. It hasn't."

If so, you would appear to be innumerate

Have I missed something but are the questions answers and context been published? I am an atheist but if I was asked If I believed in the Catholic Church I would have to say yes because it exists. If I was asked if I believe in a god I would say no. Obviously mankind must have some influence on climate so if asked that I would say yes although I am a climate change atheist, nor denier nor skeptic.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. The word cannot be meaningfully applied to Climate Change or AGW.

There being no (empirical) evidence for the existence of a Deity, atheism is rational (although this is not proof it is true). Most people accept that beleif in a deity must be based on faith (belief without evidence). The apparent conflict is resolved by considering epistemological approaches (but that's off topic).

These epistemological distinctions don't apply to AGW. We are in a position to expect to have evidence in relation to AGW and we do. Lots of it.

A climate change skeptic would be someone who is willing to indulge in positive inquiry and critical thinking about the matter, as well as proportioning their beliefs to the available evidence (not to mention being willing to alter those beliefs if and when the evidence changes significantly). I see none of that from Mr Coochey

Pseudoskepticism, on the contrary, makes a virtue of doubt per se, regardless of other considerations, and is therefore irrational.

There is plenty of evidence for AGW - to not believe in it is therefore irrational. Mr Coochey's use of the word atheist is therefore misapplied and so his simply a denier/pseduo-skeptic who can't admit it

You miss my point but that is only to be expected. Had I taken the survey I could well have been classed as a true believer. For example if you asked me if I believed in UFO's I would have to say yes. Because thing fly through the air which are not at that time identified. (Unidentified Flying Objects) If on the other hand I was asked if we had been visited by aliens I would say no. The issue here is not Climategate, Amazon Gate Himalaya Gate or any other blunder by believers and by the way no one has told me who is right Flannery or Pitmanm so no one is more knowledgeable than Chubb, the issue at this stage is what questions were asked, in what sequence (Remember the episode of Yes Minister) and in what context. By the way another question asked but not answered by Steffen at the ANU Deliberation of two years ago (At which I was accused of issuing death threats, a threat debunked which became a hoot for a couple of weeks but if anyone wants to repeat it I will be happy to sue them) was, given the Deliberation was supposed to be about adapting to temperature rises in the Canberra region, what was the actual temperature record?

It is always useful Mark to be literate as well as numerate.
I would draw your attention to what the figures you quote actually are.
"Energy use refers to use of primary energy before transformation to other end-use fuels, which is equal to indigenous production plus imports and stock changes, minus exports and fuels supplied to ships and aircraft engaged in international transport."
Thus this figure includes industrial use, including manufacturing. During this period Australia's industrial base has continued to contract.
It would also mean that Australian residents who flew in planes refuelled overseas would not have this fuel included. Overseas tourists would have the opposite effect.
Corrections for both of these factors, and others, would need to be made to arrive at more comparable figures.
Electricity usage from midnight Saturday to midnight Sunday, and/or petrol sales for a similar period.
Taking numbers and jumping to conclusions is I suppose much more accepted than it used to be, so I suppose that I will be accused of nitpicking.

No the per capita figure is not the relevant figure as I understand our Kyoto commitments are not expressed in per capita terms.

Moreover I think you will find that the actual decline is not due to savings or efficiencies. For example 2007-2011 contains the GFC when mining contracted for a period. Also general decline of manufacturing - particularly a smelter recently and also an oil refinery will certainly bring down our fuel consumption - but only by removing these emissions offshore. ON the other hand employment in services, IT, education and health - all low emitters - continued to grow.

Worked out what is driving that correlation between sunspots and temperatures yet?

LOl Correlation is not causation. But of course you would choose to offer a furphy. Perhaps you fail to understand the basic physics of climate?

Your comment is also erroneous. Mr Dean was NOT commenting about Kyoto or anything else. He was asserting that Australians, as indivduals, were not reducing their emissions. That is falsified by the data I have presented. Perhaps you also need to become more literate and numerate, not to mention developing a basic understanding of the science

1. Where did I say correlation is not causation? It seems the brilliant mind of Dr Harrigan is the one who finds it hard to explain. Let me unpack a simple example you should get your head around: there is a correlation between ice cream sales and people drowning, but this does not mean that eating ice cream cause you to drown. No, hot weather cause people to eat ice cream and also causes people to go swimming with an increased risk of drowning. Hot weather drives the correlation between eating ice cream and drowing. See how simple it is?
Now you have had this explained to you, let me repeat
"Worked out what is driving that correlation between sunspots and temperatures yet?"

But the data does not show individuals are reducing their admissions, it shows that total admissions per capita have reduced. But if we move heavy industry and smelting off shore that is just outsourcing the emissions overseas. And that doesn't show INDIVIDUALS are changing their behavior at all. And if we wish to meet our targets, are targets are total emissions.

That is two pretty fundamental error in as many paragraph. For all your rudeness, arrogance and general snideness, you don't have a very strong grasp of the subject do you? And the way you seem so desperate to sidestep the correlation questions suggests to me you don't have very much belief in climate science yourself. A true believer would try to provide a genuine scientific explanation, not an erroneous debating sneer.

Incidentally, o literate and numerate one, you have misread the table.

The data values should be:
2007 - 5,929kg

2008 - 6,019kg

2009 - 5,971kg

2010 - 5,643kg

It would seem there has only been a single year significant drop 2009-2010 for reasons that may have very little to do with individual.
For someone with such advanced literate and numerate skills as yourself, I imagine reading something so mundane as a table would be easy to get wrong.

Thanks Sean, you are quite right. Your figures are the correct interpretation of the table. My mistake

(See, it's easy to admit an error if you're honest).

They still show a per capita reduction though. And along with the other figures I have quoted (electricity per capita and emissions per capita) do not support Mr Deans use of an abolute figure to try and claim that individuals are not reducing their emissions. Thats 3 independent lines of evidence (not all across the time frame of the table abive by the way)

Oh, and to answer your question about sunpots - everyone knows it's those republican senators of course :)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/fun-with-correlations/

Which bit do you have trouble understanding?

If you are saying there is no correlation between sunspots and temperature on earth - why not just say so?

The statement correlation is not causation is not concept you were after - for example there is a strong and positive correlation between gum disease and cardiac disease but the exact the mechanistic links between the two conditions are a matter of much speculation. No one thinks the correlation is purely coincidental or pure random chance - the correlation is definitely statistically significant, but few think either that one is directly the cause of the other. That is what most scientifically literate people mean when they talk about correlation not being causation.

You, on the other hand, appear to be saying there is no statistically significant correlation at all, that it is just random noise. Actually hypothetically you could envisage some link between sunspot cycles and republican senators. Sunspot cycles correlate with good and bad harvest cycles which correlate with agricultural commodity prices which correlate with electoral politics cycles. I wouldn't want to bet my house on it myself.
Nevertheless, since the sun is so obviously the source of the energy which reaches the earth, to so glibly dismiss such an apparent correlation suggests bad faith to me.

And as I think we both know, you don't have to look far to find a casual explanation linking the two.