And the “urban heat effect”. D’oh! They forgot to put the thermometers far enough out in the country. Those climate scientists are such dills. They probably, like, put them in volcanoes as well.

Don’t wrap the tinfoil too tight Pete.

As an example on Arctic sea ice who would you believe?:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

or

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&fd=13&fy=2007&sm=10&sd=13&sy=2008
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/09/sea-ice-extent-recovering-quickly/

Is James Hansen a fervent partisan politician or a climate scientist?

Prof Bob Carter, an Australian climate scientist said:

“Hansenist climate hysteria is driven by relentless, ideological, pseudo-scientific drivel, most of which issues from green political activists and their supporters, and is then promulgated by compliant media commentators who are innocent of knowledge of true scientific method. Opportunistically, and sadly, some scientists, too, contribute to the Hansenist alarmism. Sir Roderick Carnegie was quite correct when he formerly identified such environmental lobbying and emotional propaganda as a greater threat to our society and way of life than, in its heyday, was communism.”

What is clear, if nothing else, is that the IPCC’s super confident predictions have been questioned by at least some reputable scientific opinion.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14792-chemical-equator-protects-antarcticas-clean-air.html

Scientists have discovered a “chemical equator” just north of Australia that divides polluted air from South-East Asia from the largely uncontaminated atmosphere of the Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica.

The discovery will help researchers create accurate simulations of how pollutants move in the atmosphere and assess their impact on climate.

The polluted air of the northern hemisphere and the clearer air of the southern hemisphere tend not to mix. A mobile cloudy belt known as the Intertropical Convergence Zone that runs around the globe roughly at the level of the equator is thought to form a meteorological barrier between the two.

We should just enjoy life while we can and cherish every last day we have.

Why don’t you do some bloody research? Antarctic ice is increasing because it’s a continent not an ocean. There’s your starting point…now try 10 minutes Googling without your head in the sand.

Your Bolt et al claim that scientists are apparently ignoring Antarctic ice increase is hilarious considering 1) They’re not, they’re watching it keenly, and 2) It’s a very large indicator of global warming.

How about some meaning ful questions like:
Why is Antarctic ice increasing?
Why are we paying ovr $1.50 per litre for petrol when the price is down to $75 a barrel?

Oh, of course, we should feel good about being gouged on petrol prices if we are good environmental citizens.

…And the oil companies continue to fund the climate change propaganda as they laugh all the way to the bank.

The bank? Oh yes, they just received lots of government (our) money.

Crikey, get it together!

String theory, not strong theory. Arg.

Petert well done, consider that a victory for you, i agree and so do many other rational readers out there.

Oh and Bernard - the moon landings were a hoax and 911 was an inside job - get with the program

On what basis have you determined which scientists are credible and which are not?

“And all the evidence suggests we’re starting to see positive feedback loops that are rapidly accelerating climate change.”

Show me this evidence. The only new evidence which supports the hysteria that has come to my note is a new hypothesis which tells us we should ignore all the evidence which in recent times does not support the original hypothesis of GW.

“This is a slippery slope to protectionism”. Indeed it is, all the way to Central Planning. And you know what, that is right up Peter Garrett’s alley. And who else’s?

“Jobs and money are being lost….This is fundamentally flawed reasoning — and untrue, anyway.”

Bernard, your fundamentals are in the wrong place. You are not alone there. Gough Whitlam’s universities decided thirty years ago that Australians were born so smart that they could delete the first five chapters out of all the text books, the chapters which contained the fundamentals.

The fundamentals, Bernard, are the tangible goods and services available for consumption. Note that word tangible.

Your cited example of wool is an outstanding example of this lack of understanding. Wool was wiped out not by any problem with wool the product, nor by any adverse changes in the marketplace, nor by PETA. Wool was wiped out by abominable management by Australian governments which showed a very poor understanding of the most fundamental rules of marketing, backed up by the same incestuous big business club which created the financial meltdown.

Just a few months back the last members of a doomsday cult were driven out of a cave in Russia by the stench of their dying mates. We don’t have a cave big enough to hold this GW cult.

Bernard, I can ease your fears. To monitor the progress of GW, keep an eye on the sea level at Fort Denison

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

Since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.
3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Many land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the “urban heat effect”.
4. Past temperature rises occurred beforerises in atmospheric carbon.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politian’s assertion.

So… the cause has merely been asserted, not proven.

The trouble is, who are the “credible scientists” and how do you assess their credibility? Unless they have the serious mathematical competence of, say, a particle physicist, and have actually applied their high level skills to making or closely examining and testing the models which have to be relied on for the IPCC so-called consensus view, why should they have any credibility. Many are those with philosophical or quasi-religious prejudices who have been drawn to contribute to a rather fuzzy “environmental” or equivalent science or are the great and good who must be seen to have bien pensants opinions. Consider the case of the likeable and admrable Tim Flannery. Why does anyone take him seriously on the subject of global warming/climate change and its causes just because he talks a lot about it and regurgitates with some eloquence secondhand material? Is he the type of credible scientist you refer to?

Well ‘climate corruption’ goes on and the ‘climate change’ problem on everyone’s lips aint getting smaller BUT the fix is not affordable anymore with everyone going broke.
This good Dr will tell you its now ‘natures’ turn. Smarter than us humans by far (always so until we get carried away with our own self-importance and smartness and live in our own invented La La land). I can bet your plethora of experts can’t even begin to think what I might mean (so long dissociated from nature).

Rudd and Swan would have been far better advised to apply the $10.4 billion to the development of renewable energy, and the reduction of the use of hydrocarbons in this world. If only someone said that that amount of money was available to be spent in this finacial year, something real might happen.

It wouldn’t stop climate change or whatever it is, but it would generate spending in useful areas for the future good of this stressed planet of ours.