As for our leaders, well the point I was getting to in a round about way is that all those nice counter terrorist laws that were passed with a general “its not about you” kind of wink from the government will, I think, come back to bite the populous as a defence for the industrial status quo. Think you can protest against a coal fired power station - not in this state you can’t.

And these climate change denying filth still persist in saying ‘this is all normal’. Up till now I always thought of climate change deniers as simple morons. Now I see them as morons with blood on their hands.

I want one of the deniers posting here to tell me that what is happening in Victoria is ‘normal climate’.

There are countless examples issues that have challenged accepted orthodoxy (Round Earth, Evolution, Sun Centric Solar System, Cigarettes linked to Cancer etc). These theories were vigorously debated at the time, but at some point were accepted by the scientific community and then the wider community.

The debate on Climate Change has been going on for over 40 years. You could argue it was largely accepted back in early 90’s with the Kyoto Protocol. Unfortunately the vested interests have managed to frame ‘Climate Change’ as an accepted orthodoxy that must now be challenged.

The rest of us just want to move on.

Can we pull back from Global warming if we really want to - in 5 or 10 years time? Economists tell us that to do so will cost more then than if we start today. I would much rather make a fullout effort now and be proved wrong than to do nothing (except rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic) and find out later that climate change is a really big problem - and we should have started long ago. Better to push for renewable energy sources that work now, review our quite unsustainable agriculture and place it on a more ecological footing. But we cannot even repair the River Murray! What chances have we in saving most of the planet?

Perhaps as Grouch Marx one said “why should I care about the future - what has the future done for me?” The problem is I do care, and all I see as a reasonable analysis from Clive Hamilton being torn to pieces for the most part by people who can’t even present a logical argument.

It’s YOUR hypothesis Evan.

The burden of proof lies with you.

Even a child knows that.

Gullible believers like yourself can only talk about the (alleged) symptoms of (alleged) AGW.

You know less than nothing about the (alleged) CAUSE.

Even the IPCC admits it does not know the (alleged) CAUSE of (alleged) AGW.

Again all you do is pompously hypothesise…with no real evidence to support even your ‘best guess’.

Your continual ‘back-to-the-caves’ beseeching for a carbon-free world is a joke.

That you and the other climate proselytes keep banging on about it only amplifies your irrelevance to the real ‘debate’.

As big a folly is your brethren’s belief that a mystical Galt’s motor will magically appear and ‘save us’ from ourselves.

How do you reconcile such shamelessly misguided and dangerous arrogance?

Laughably, the climate cognoscenti also seriously entertain the plausibility of “burying” ‘bad’ gases underground as means of ‘footprint’ ‘reduction’; something even one of your original Apostles has now summarily dismissed as being beyond rational sanity.

Despite displaying all the attributes of a textbook politicanEvan, I give eternal thanks you are not in a position to drive public policy on this issue.

I placed your position at one extreme mainly because of your reference to civilisation-ending sea level rise. I still find the work of Pfeffer et al 2008 most convincing on this score, i.e. no more than a metre or two of sea level rise by 2100. This discounts all-bets-off scenarios such as dislodgement of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, but I just can’t see that happening on a time scale of less than a century.

This is like the terrorism dialectic - how do you fight an intangible enemy?

The best news I have heard is the “carbon dioxide is really bad people” have hired a swanky ad agency to make a mult-imillion dollar glamorama commercial aired on everything that can create a signal to tells us how much we need to worry and that it’s all our fault and therefore to get ready for some serious taxing. I guess you could liken it to readying the Christmas turkey for darn good baking.

No doubt this campaign, including the mega media spend, will cost somebody (us silly) millions and millions of dollar equivalents which could be far more wisely spent on saving the planet from all the really bad things going on like real destruction and poisoning.

Do you know who the political dupes want to run this taxathon? Yep, I am fairly certain it is the same guys who do the big bonuses and get taxpayer bailouts for creating derivative based bubbles bigger than the planet and exporting them to the world! This is exactly who Garnaut called for to manage the scheme in a piece in the Financial Review in February . Taxing you every time you breathe out is a big job but someone has to do it . So who better? Awake? Whether you believe in in MMGW or not, don’t fall for the global bankers’ three card trick! Well meaning scientific types are no match for scalawags - they get caught in the fine print every time.

As I have said a thousand times, stop the internationlists from destroying the third world ecosystems and in the process, removing the rainforests from the planet and fouling the oceans beyond salvation. Such concerted action directed against these tangible examples of world kill will work for sure to save mother earth!

Do you honestly think the biggest fionancial force in the world - the oil companies and the international financial interests who own them will allow oil to phased out any time soon? Half if not three quarters of the things we buy today are derived from crude oil. Everything is either plastic, vinyl, faux rubber, cleaning agent, detergent or shampoo. What have I left out - newfood? This cap and trade tango is a very clever way to indirectly tax the naive public one more time before it loses its collective last shirt. Then “back to nature” will be the only option.

Which 100% census of “all active and published climate scientist in research institutions and universities” demonstrate your wildly inaccurate assertion Andrew?

Is this not actually yet further ‘evidence’ of yet another delusional assertion of yet just another climate alarmist?

If ‘one’ can’t speak without silly hyperbole then in the words of Wittgenstein: “one must be silent”

(1) Direct observations in nature.
(2) Long term field and satellite meteorological measurements
(3) The basic laws of physics and chemistry of the atmosphere, primarily the infrared absoprtion/emission resonance effect of greenhouse molecules (CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFC). An essential text in this regard is on: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm.

There are those who genuinely doubt global warming - I hope they are right, for this would remove the daunting spectre of dangerous climate change.

If these people are serious, they ought to read the scientific literature, and come up with cogent points - which can then be discussed. If they are not right, they ought to reflect on the consequences for present and future generations should carbon emissions continue and no itigation and adaptation efforts undertaken by governments around the world.

The implication of this way of thinking is that we have to sign up to ALL the same positions as everyone else in our group of like-minded people. As a true contrarian I believe it should be possible to say I agree with you on WMDs and I disagree with you on climate change.

To my mind it is the height of anti-intellectualism for Clive and others to declare that there is no debate when there are literally thousands of scientists out there who have declared in favour of the contrarian position.

The point being that the constant ‘debate’ over what we all know to be true - that Climate Change is on, just like Iraq was about oil and not WMD’s (worst kept secret ever) - really only serves the status quo. In this case it’s the heavy polluters (for Iraq, who knows what they were thinking?).

We need to see some genuine action on Climate Change, and soon. Until then *queue Chic’s disco classic* ‘Ahhhh Freak Out!!’

In so far as you view climate change science as published, for example by Hansen’s scientific team in the US, or Rahmstorf’s team in Potsdam, or the Raupach-Canadell CSIRO research, or indeed the implications of IPCC climate projections in the range of 2 to 6 degrees C as “EXTREME”, I am happy to send you recent relevant papers documenting the evidence.

These will include the following:
Lennton et al. 2008 - Tipping points in the Earth system
Easterling and Werner 2009 - Is the Earth warming or cooling
Eby et al. 2009 - CO2 and temprature projections for the 21st century and beyond
Dakos et al. 2008 - Slowing down as early warning system of abrupt climate change
Hansen et al. 2007 - trace gases and climate change
Hansen et al. 2008 - Target CO2
Broecker, 2000 - Abrupt climate change

and other papers.

I will be happy to discuss with you specific scientific points or questions.

Andrew Glikson
15-7-09

And what an immensely risky and unsafe free climbing manoevure on the rock face of human ecology it is.

For instance, as India and China and indeed Africa, Brazil and South East Asia generate more dirty energy (along with brown coal energy supplies in Victoria Australia etc), eventually decide to reduce their lung cancer statistics, the tissue thin veil will tear releasing embedded warming and runaway tipping points. Entropy will be our master, and cruel one at that.

I’m beyond fear now, and indeed depression. Now I just muck around with camp ovens, enjoy Eastern Yellow Robins darting around and marvel at the ascension of an unabashed Stalinist representing the best the NSW Green Party has to offer obsessing about the distribution of production however it is created.

After 6 arrests trying to save forests and stuff, and helping knock off the odd US$3B aluminium smelter in Chile, it’s time the well paid greenies took their turn. Do they even know how to get arrested? Did Peter Garrett ever?

But the skeptics need to do more than deny. They need to put forward an alternative hypothesis for what drives climate change, if not CO2, CH4 etc. Their prime candidate is solar activity. But we’re just starting to come out of the deepest and longest minimum in solar activity for several cycles. As well, as the Synthesis Report says, we’ve had a La Nina regime prevailing for much of that time. If the skeptics are right, we should have had not merely a plateau, but a substantial, multi-year drop in global temperatures.

Consequently, as we head towards the next solar activity peak, and most indicators point to the onset of an El Nino, I’m tipping global temperature to head back above the long term trend line over the next few years.

Yes i see your point.

I won’t make that mistake again.

Here’s another quote I like from ‘South Park’

“Goddamn hippies!”

Haha! So funny!

Post your own funny quotes from TV shows! It’s not unoriginal, lazy or played out at all.

very nice…..not

- sascha baron cohen aka borat. rofl.

You are right about your reputation.

‘Do some science. Prove that everyone else is wrong. Until then, shut your mouth.’

Shouldn’t it be enough to just prove a few wrong and hasn’t that already been done?

Anyway at least thanks to Al Gore we are now safe from the threat of ManBearPig so i suppose his followers have some credibility.

At a time when global temperatures have gone into reverse, what sane government would shut down its existing power supply on the basis of computer modelling of a possible scenario based on theory and statistical fiddling? This would lead to the loss of many thousands of jobs and large-scale disruption to economies and societies around the world.

Clive continues to talk of ‘the science’ as if all scientific research into climate unarguably supported the global warming hypothesis. Many eminent scientists have disputed this. Ignoring the scientific debate like this and denying the existence of credible contrary scenarios is nothing less than scientific fundamentalism, which is the opposite of the spirit of free inquiry that science is supposed to represent.

How can we accept predictions about the temperature in future years, when the little box on my computer screen tells me that the actual temperature today was one degree higher than the predicted maximum in this part of Sydney?

Hennpenny flies again! I have not yet seen any evidence that the planet is about to disintegrate or that the world population will be reduced to single-cell life by 2015 or 2020 or 2050.

Stop going on about the science and start talking about the risks, the probabilities, the potential costs and the possible mitigations. This is an insurance issue. People do not need proof that their home will burn down before they pay non-refundable premiums to insure against the risk. It is the same with the possible effects of climate change.

Mama, you’re an idiot. Your ravings very rarely contribute anything meaningful to these debates. Take your Heartland card somewhere else. Do some science. Prove that everyone else is wrong. Until then, shut your mouth.

What evidence is contradicting the apocalypse? Any answer including the phrase ‘cooling since 1998’ is an immediate fail.

Indeed.

Witness Clive Hamilton pushing this ‘solution’:

“I pledge, if asked, to perform non-violent civil disobedience and risk arrest in order to get our leaders to make the right climate-change choices.”

Baseless and deliberate fear-mongering; advocating cultish, lemming-like behaviour but above all, truly stupid.

You’re at risk of being typecast.

The Sixties are over Clive. Didn’t you get the memo?

Such pathetic doomsday nihilism.

“…It is my view humans will be able to survive even the worst of climate change, including in high mountain valley enclaves, elevated volcanic islands and tropical regions shielded by thick water vapor/clouds. Civilization, hinged as it is on coastal, delta and low river valleys, is another matter…”

Is this how desperate you need to sound to guarantee tenure these days?

Pity the evidence is contradicting your apocalypse.