I'll tell you what it does show ; there is absolutely no way a layperson can do anything other than rely on the majority opinion of experts.
Each side is replete with those ( including many on this blog) simply unable to accept any evidence which doesn't bolster their position , ridicule anyone who questions their arguments and attack as biased/corrupted/prejudiced any source from which information contrary to their belief is derived.

I've read the stuff at RealClimate and it is too technical for me but it certainly appears - as with many contrarian blogs - that a "party line" is the order of the day.

It is really disgraceful on the part of the science community and ( mostly ) the media that the public only becomes more and more confused and the repuatations of all participants are sullied.

I read the TIME article yesterday on a plane to Canberra and it did seem very alarmist.

Lindzen is pretty credible and The House of Lords isn't a House of Fools.

Having said all that , is it possible that such dishonesty/bad faith,venality - call it what you will - is being perpetrated on the public globally on such a massive scale?

If so, why?

Perhaps I can ask a related question:
For a long time socialism was presented as the ideal way to run the world. True believers enthusiastically prosletised this approach.

Even the Prince of Wales said "We are all socialists now".

Having said all that , is it possible that such dishonesty/bad faith,venality - call it what you will - was perpetrated on the public globally on such a massive scale?

If so, why?

If why, could humankind be so foolish to do anolgous mistakes again, but following yet another utopian vision?

Hah. Not possible. People arn't that stupid.

It would only happen if they were filled up with over the top propaganda, and were subjected to constant strong peer /emotional pressure to toe the party line, that schools indoctrinated most children to believe one simplistic set of psueudo religious beliefs, and people generaly let their emotions rule their opinions rather than rationality, and that doesn't happen in sophisticated modern societies.

The constantly shifting literature of climate change - the inefficiencies of renewable energy - doubts about Kyoto. How should goverments Act?

Old Chinese saying: If in doubt, don't.

detribe,
The difference was that socialism ( admittedly awful for those who lived under it) was easily compared with an alternative.Those who believed it superior had a pretty big elephant in the room to ignore.
Climate science is supposed to be about observable,measurable data and qualified opinion?
Isn't it?
How many qualifications from either side have you seen lately?

What a load of absolute garbage. To anyone that has read even a small amount of the available literature on climate change and AGW would be able to see the this for contrarian party line crap.

Richard Lidzen is one and I am sure that he is credible. However there are thousands of climate scientists that have an opposing view championed by the excellent Real Climate site that tries to communicate the facts as science knows them.

As a non-scientist I can easily understand the explanations at the various climate sites. What I have read has convinced me that AGW is real and will lead to some degree of climate change. This is what is agreed to by most scientists in the climate field. It is the most concise statement of the scientific facts as they are presently known. It is no more a party line that gravity is a artifact of the geometry of space-time.

Ender,
You're obviously much cleverer than I.
How many credible scientists who are sceptical of current AGW theory post at Real Climate?
How are the arguments treated?
I haven't checked back but I recall some BS along the lines of " How to talk to a sceptic" ?
Sound a little patronising/arrogant/one sided to you?
Jim

Phew! Someone has finally done a comprehensive literature review for us, and now we can all rest assured that the answers are at hand to all the questions we have that relate to climate change and the associated technologies.

3 papers, all from the one source! That's fantastic! It's all clear now!

/silence
/tumbleweed rolls across the street
/ a dog barks

To the provider of this material: You don't need advanced behavioural modelling to predict the reactions to your offerings. You just need common sense.

Nobody with common sense and "any vestige of objectivity" would presume to form an opinion on such a large, hotly contested subject as climate change based only on 3 papers from the one source.

People with a 'vestige of objectivity' would collect info from many sources. People who are both pragmatic and who are time-efficient in sorting through all the info would also weight each source, depending on its perceived level of authority. eg. alarmist statements about climate change from Greenpeace do receive high weight, negative articles about wind energy by professional coal power lobbyists do not receive high weight.

Common sense. Objectivity. Understand?

correction to prev post: alarmist statements about climate change from Greenpeace do =NOT= receive high weight.

ahah hah ha freudian slip.

Well, sticking close to the theme of common sense and objectivity that Steve understands so well;

..last week in Newcastle they had a big opening of the new state-of-the-art CSIRO solar energy display at Steel River, thousands of mirrors reflecting cosmic rays onto some sort of energy collector that converted the suns rays into electrical energy..

..the opening went ahead OK but the solar demo had to be cancelled..

..it was a cloudy day..

Ender, You say that what you have read has convinced you that AGW is real and will lead to some degree of climate change. Dr Hans von Storch, Director of Germany's leading Institute for Coastal Research and Professor at the Meteorological Institute at the University of Hamburg also believes that AGW is real and will lead to some degree of climate change.

Last month, in his presentation as an invited speaker to the US National Research Council inquiry into the 'hockey stick' (my paraphrase) , Dr. von Storch said 'The practice of scientists exaggerating threatening perspectives of anthropogenic climate change and its implications serves not only the purpose of supporting a policy perceived as "good" but also personal agendas of career and public visibility. The problem is, however, that the desired public attention can only be achieved if these perspectives are continuously topped by even more threatening perspectives. Thus, the credibility of climate science is endangered and its important role of advising policy .. becomes an unsustainable practice.'

Dr. von Storch also expressed the view that the 'spiral of ongoing practice of slight exaggeration results in the formation of significant misinformation in the public realm'; that 'any statement which may be used by the skeptics is fended off'; and, of the current situation, that 'Science is downgraded to a repair shop of contemporary knowledge claims. Under the veil of socio-political benevolence, a variety of subjective self-centred agendas are pursued and deviating scientifically possible valid approaches are fended off.'

OK those are the opinions of one scientist, but a very respected one who was brought from Germany to Boulder, Colorado by the US NRC to present his findings on the 'hockey stick' issue. I don't think his views on the wider issues should be lightly shrugged off.

Incidentally, and I emphasise that I don't know the answer, have readers of realclimate been informed of what Dr. von Storch said at the National Research Council hearing?

Jim - "How many credible scientists who are sceptical of current AGW theory post at Real Climate?
How are the arguments treated?
I haven't checked back but I recall some BS along the lines of " How to talk to a sceptic" ?"

Plenty - R Peilke Snr is a regular poster and is very well treated as he is well respected as is Von Storch. How to talk to a skeptic is an attempt, NOT by Real Climate but an independant person, to summerise the misinformation that some skeptics use and present the scientific facts to counter the claims.

"Incidentally, and I emphasise that I don't know the answer, have readers of realclimate been informed of what Dr. von Storch said at the National Research Council hearing?"

Either do I. Why don't you ask them?

Hi Rog,

Did you call CSIRO to let them know why their solar power system did not operate at full power that day? Perhaps they didn't realise, and have not factored into their calculations that the system would not be operating at peak capacity on cloudy days. Maybe you should make sure.

I'm sure they would appreciate your interest, common sense and insight.

Steve

Ender, You have just told us that 'there are thousands of climate scientists that have an opposing view championed by the excellent Real Climate site that tries to communicate the facts as science knows them'; that this site 'is the most concise statement of the scientific facts as they are presently known'; and that 'It is no more a party line that gravity is a artifact of the geometry of space-time.'

These are pretty big claims. As you and other readers on this site are regular followers of Real Climate, I thought that someone might know whether von Storch's comments had been reported there. But it's not a big deal.

As you have now said that von Storch is 'well respected', may I ask whether it concerns you that he holds the views about the current state of climate science that he reported to the NAS hearing?

Ender,
My apologies ,you are quite correct ; the smart alec " How to talk to a sceptic " site is linked to but isn't Real Climate.
I took the time while there however to have a browse and I stand by my "party line" comment; at least as far as RC is concerned.
It's nothing like this place, there's a genuinely broad range of views here; that's why I enjoy it.
Where else would you get Phil and Louis together?

Ian Castles - "may I ask whether it concerns you that he holds the views about the current state of climate science that he reported to the NAS hearing?"

No and why should it. Von Storch does not know what the degree of climate change will be. Neither do you or Dr Morohasy, Dr Mann or anyone else no matter what sort of degree or knowledge you have.

Dr Von Storch thinks that "AGW is real and will lead to some degree of climate change." and in this I agree with him. To disagree on the details is fine. To hold any action on climate change to make sure that people with money can continue to make more could turn out be criminal negligence that no-one alive today will have to pay for. Or it could turn out to be incredibly wise as the climate change could turn out to be nothing. However the problem is that is impossible to predict with present climate ignorance which it will be.

The degree of climate change from global warming is not known and is a bit of a horse race. In trying to pick a winner you usually go with the favourite however that does not stop a 100:1 outsider winning. It is impossible without inside knowledge or corrupt racing to pick the winner from the starting lineup. Past form of the horses will give you a guide and people with expert knowledge can give tips however until the race is run no-one knows the outcome.

Assessment of climate change is an assessment of risk. Some assess the risk as small and some large. I am listening to the majority of the experts as I would if I was betting on the horses and preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. If that means I make less money over the next 10 years or so then so be it.

Ender, Assessments of risk should be based on the best available information. Rightly or wrongly, Dr. von Storch takes the view that there is 'significant misinformation in the public realm' as a result of 'The practice of scientists exaggerating threatening perspectives of anthropogenic climate change and its implications.'

You may think that 'disagreement about details is fine', but I can assure you that Hans von Storch doesn't. He believes, and emphasised in bold red letters on a powerpoint slide, that this practice of exaggeration 'is unsustainable and damages the social institution "science".'

In the end, governments need popular support for action that imposes short-term pain for long-term gain. Public trust in science is potentially one of the most potent weapons that they have for marshalling that support. If von Storch is right, that public trust is being placed in jeopardy by scientists who are continually chasing ever more threatening perspectives. You may think he's wrong, but I think that you're kidding yourself if you think that your disagreement with him is on a point of detail.

Ender,
"To hold any action on climate change to make sure that people with money can continue to make more could turn out be criminal negligence that no-one alive today will have to pay for."
That really gives the game away doesn't it?
I thought the reason for not making huge cuts in GHG emissions until the extent of the impact of AGW was better known was that the economy could be wrecked and that we ALL would be affected - rich and poor alike?
In fact , the rich would probably be far less affected relatively than those at the bottom of the ladder.
Do you believe that Australia's reluctance to sign up to Kyoto was based on corrupt favours to the wealthy?

I dont know why you boffin types bother debating non-entities like Ender "As a non-scientist..'

Pee Done is on a mission to defend the invisible aka "lurkers"

Thinksi Thinski Laura O'Conell aka Stinky is just disagreeable full stop. Mother-in-law from hell

You guys are squandering your resources arguing the toss with chimeras

Noun: chimera
1. A grotesque product of the imagination - see also Rog
2. A deep-sea fish with a tapering body, smooth skin, and long threadlike tail - attracts trolls by bright topic lights

Noun: Chimera
1. (Greek mythology) fire-breathing female monster with a lion's head and a goat's body and a serpent's tail; daughter of Typhon - see Thinski - see also hottie

Ian Castles - "Assessments of risk should be based on the best available information."

Sure however the best available information happens to come from the sources you disdain. Selecting information sources that agree with you will only lead to the incorrect actions.

"n the end, governments need popular support for action that imposes short-term pain for long-term gain"

Again sure - and that is exactly why I think nothing worthwhile will be done.

Jim - "It's nothing like this place, there's a genuinely broad range of views here; that's why I enjoy it.
Where else would you get Phil and Louis together?"

Here I absolutely agree with you and this is the reason I read and post here.

"I thought the reason for not making huge cuts in GHG emissions until the extent of the impact of AGW was better known was that the economy could be wrecked and that we ALL would be affected - rich and poor alike?
In fact , the rich would probably be far less affected relatively than those at the bottom of the ladder.
Do you believe that Australia's reluctance to sign up to Kyoto was based on corrupt favours to the wealthy?"

Well you judge Jim - the only ones really present at the talks around this were the aluminium smelters and the coal and energy people. No-one else really got a look in. The rich and influential can look after themselves and they do. You are completely correct that the poor will suffer them most if anything happens including the collapse of our economies. There are no really good outcomes as climate change is not the only problem facing the future - energy supplies are the other gotcha.

Jen - what did Richard Kerr say about models and observations ??

I didn't see what Jen saw.

I am really puzzled that anyone is confused or suggesting that global warming issues are flip-flopping about.
I would have thought every day the evidence mounts. Compellingly and one way.
The sceptics are being literally buried alive under an avalanche of good peer reviewed papers saying that climate related warming phenomena are occurring globally. Jen's refence to the latest Science journal is a classic example.
We have empircal evidence of the greenhouse effect from satellites and ground measurments. We may be arguing about the exact future scenarios that may play out. Ian Castles has been doing a lot of that himself with the RealClimate guys themselves.

On Lindzen - a critique - dear readers can make of it what they will:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222

House of Lords don't get everything right according to some (and ignoring the previously well discussed MER/PPP bit):

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/07/house-of-lords-subverted-by-skeptics.ht
ml

In terms of How to Talk to a Sceptic - why be offended. Have a look at the rants on Louis's site, John McLean, Lavoisier, John Daly etc etc etc. Sceptics and contrarians play very hard ball and sprout more than their share of nonsense. I consider long term climate poster, Coby Beck's site, to be informative and well organised. http://illconsidered.blogspot.com

Why aren't you guys demanding that sceptics sites clean up their act. How many still have the old MSU story up ??

Makes it hard when our biggest superpower has utterly intellectually mangled thinking on the issue. See Bush remarks on climate in here.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-6.html

Who knows what the man is saying, what he believes, and what he thinks. It's gooblygook. Even Louis makes more sense.

And of course Realclimate have a "party line" - it's called the balance of evidence and facts. Comments are sometimes feisty. RC get upped for the rent every day. Might make you become curt and not tolerate fools. But the very famous Ian Castles himself has had massive indulgence on there of late.
Check it out !
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-pl
us-a-change/

See Ian getting lots of space and attention from Ray Pierre and Gavin Schmidt, site moderators. What mega-indulgence !

And unlike some sites which will use ANYTHING to prove a point - have a look at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/significant-warming-of-the-antarctic-winter-troposphere/

They actually haven't called global warming on this study even though popular press might do so.

Anyway - what do you expect - there's heaps on contrarian stuff out there. They're all screaming louder as the evidence mounts.
Contrarians will be throwing stuff up every day. That's the way it is. Louis will never be convinced.

In the end, you have to examine both sides of the various arguments and ask yourself if it adds up.

For myself I think the evidence is most compelling.

But still lots of work to be done and uncertainties to resolve. And engineering a soft landing for all global passengers is the big problem.

P.S. Time Magazine wasn't too bad on basic facts but a bit over-hyped on conclusions. They'll write a story saying its all rubbish in 6 months time.
That's the media for you!

Pee pee; if you had referred to your standby Wiki you would have posted;

"The word chimera is also generally accepted to mean an unreal ambition, a fanciful scheme, or even a castle in the air."

Doesn't the Center for Science and Public Policy get most of its money from the oil industry?

Presumably the statement "The journal Science has also been featuring articles on climate change" isn't equating publications in Science with those of the Center for Science and Public Policy?

Hello all!

I am the "smart alec" who authored the "How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic Guide" ( http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html )that has been mentioned a few time in this thread. I'm not here for a fight but did want to clarify a couple of things.

This project is targeted specifically at all those sceptic arguments that are clearly and completely at odds with science and logic. I want to make it clear that I do believe there are legitimate areas of controversy and I try not to take positions on those particular issues. See for example this article on the Hockey stick debate ( http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html ). You will not find me taking shots at people who think the climate will warm but only 1.5oC, not 4.5oC. You won't find me laughing at the scientific contributions of Richard Lindzen or Hans Von Storch. What you will find is the basic science and the clear logic that underlies the widespread consensus ( http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html ) presented in non-technical language and as well referenced as I can (this is an ongoing task).

As with most GW debates, this thread is suffering from a lack of definitions for the terms being used by all. Specifically and critically, no one has defined what the "consensus" is. When I use it, I mean what Real Climate very specifically laid out in this article http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/ . Using that definition, Hans von Storch is not a sceptic, nor is Richard Lindzen either when he is pinned down on strictly scientific questions.

I would like to borrow a prediction from the original post of Jennifer's "Some will just abandon any pretense of analysis and reject it entirely on the basis of its derivation from a source of which they disapprove" and note that this is the behaviour exhibited by the critics in this thread of RealClimate.

As for the narrower range of views expressed there versus here, I suggest that this is due to two factors. Firstly, Real Climate is intended for scientific discussions and there really is almost zero credible science to talk about from the climate sceptic camp. Secondly, it is moderated and so the removal of off topic, ad hominem and spam like repetition of unsupported points of views seriously reduces the sceptic contribution, as it properly should. When there is serious and credible material that disagrees with the authors it makes it in, as does much less serious and credible material. (search for comments by nanny_govt_sucks and the much more scientific contributions of Ferdinand Engelbeen for evidence of this). I have not followed Jennifer's blog long but can not say she is presenting two sides of the climate debate though her comments obviously do, witness this post: unresearched and one sided in a rather inflammatory way. You will not find that lack of rigor on Real Climate.

Coby, if you "have not followed Jennifer's blog long" how can you properly make an informed opinion?

Its one thing to establish principles of research, another to follow them.

coby - I read your site on a regular basis. Iit is a valuable resource.

Thanks Coby for your posting which was certainly helpful to me. Am I right in thinking that when you say you wouldn't take shots at people who think the climate will warm but only 1.5oC, not 4.5oC, you are referring to the range of plausible estimates of climate sensitivity - i.e., the increase in temperature at equilibrium resulting from a doubling in CO2-equivalent concentrations?

The other main source of uncertainty about how much the climate will warm is about future levels of emissions, and this depends in turn on factors such as population, energy use per head and the carbon intensity of energy used.

Phil rightly says that I've had a good hearing at Real Climate in recent days, but when I asked why the IPCC didn't model emissions for a 4 billion end-century global population as well as a 15 billion one, when those who produced the population projections believed that they were equally probable, the answer from one of the site moderators was follows:

'An improbable event with very bad consequences (the high population scenario) is much more relevant for policy decisions than an improbable event in which impacts are less severe. The high end tells policy makers the risk they are taking on. The low end only says that if we're very lucky part of the problem could go away by itself, and we'll all be breathing a sigh of relief and dancing in the streets. Put it this way: If you're designing a nuclear reactor containment vessel, do you design it for the 5% chance that the pressure in a meltdown is 100 atmospheres or the 5% chance that the pressure in a meltdown is 10 atmospheres? As far as policy goes, there's very little usable information content in the low end.'

This argument seems to me to be the precise logical equivalent of saying that climate models that embody low climate sensitivity provide very little policy-relevant information, and that the IPCC's assessments should disregard the output of these models entirely. Apparently the IPCC believes there is a difference between the two cases, because it does report the output of low climate sensitivity AOGCMs and it doesn't model any emissions scenarios which assume low global populations. But is there in fact any difference between the two cases?

For Ender Again,
GreenBiz, April 2006
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=30446

By Brad Allenby

The philosopher Alvin Gouldner entitled Chapter 13 of his classic study The Two Marxisms, "Nightmare Marxism," observing that every discourse contains within it alternatives that suborn its expressed intent -- its nightmare side. For Marxism, there were two nightmares: the first that Marx's theory was, despite its claim to scientific legitimacy, just another utopian project; the second that, despite his theoretical analysis, it would turn out that the bourgeoisie were right all along, and that private property was, indeed, the basis of civilization. Should these nightmares be right, Marxism would not be the path to an enlightened future, but to despotism -- as, in fact, it was in practice.

SNIP

In short, the elite that has been created by practice of the scientific method uses the concomitant power not just to express the results of particular research initiatives, but to create, support, and implement policy responses affecting many non-scientific communities and intellectual domains in myriad ways. In doing so, they are not exercising expertise in these non-scientific domains, but rather transforming their privilege in the scientific domains into authority in non-scientific domains. Science is, in other words, segueing back into a structure where once again authority, not observation, is the basis of the exercise of power and establishment of truth by the elite. But the authority in this new model is not derived from sacred texts; rather it is derived from legitimate practice of scientific method in the scientific domain, extended into non-scientific domains. Note that this does not imply that scientists cannot, or should not, as individuals participate in public debate; only that if they do so cloaked in the privilege that the scientific discourse gives them they raise from the dead the specter of authority as truth.

Why is this nightmare science? Precisely because it raises an internal contradiction with which science cannot cope. In an age defined by the scientific worldview, which is the source of the primacy of the scientific discourse, science cannot demand privilege outside its domain based not on method, but on authority, for in doing so it undermines the zeitgeist that gives it validity. When demanding the Kyoto Treaty as scientists, it is themselves, not their opponents, that they attack.

detribe - Finding the critical paragraph

"They thus not only report the results of the practice of the scientific method, but, in part doubting the ability of the public to recognize the potential severity of the issues as scientists see them, become active as scientists in crafting and demanding particular responses, such as the Kyoto Treaty."

Really this is a scare mongering article about scientists taking over. Assuming even for one minute that scientists crafted Kyoto which they did not, that was done by polititians, you cannot beat up scientists for expressing their prefessional opionion as they see it when it agrees with observation.

Scientists have families and loved ones. They are not dispassionate scientific machines that are all virtue and lefty policies. They have a stake in this mess - if they see a problem happening it is going to happen to them as well. Kyoto is and always was a political document crafted by our elected representives. Scientists played a part by first alerting the world to the potential risk of global warming and then advising what measures needed to be taken.

If you don't accept that risk then that is not my problem or the scientists. You will cope, or not cope, with the future in your own way based on what you perceive is the risk and the preperations you make.

Ian, yes, climate sensitivity is what I mean when forced to be more explicit, though I also use that range more loosely in the way the IPCC TAR used it, though this gets us in to the messy business of scenarios and predicting economy, technology and politics.

I think you have conflated two very different concepts in your objection to raypierre's comment about the logic of focusing on low probablility dangers vs low probablility narrow misses. A low probability scenario is rather different from a low sensitivity model output. Or course all valid models should be heard from equally.

But I really do think raypierre's point is a good one (I missed it on RC). What is more important information for decision making: there is a 5% chance your disease will go away by itself, or there is a 5% chance it will kill you? I think you should be told both, but I would certainly expect the doctor to emphasize the chance of death.

Ender,
Be careful about your choice of words. When you, Ender, use "you" I'm not sure which "you" that you (Ender) mean.

What's interesting Ender, is Ender's need to dismiss the point of the comments immediately, as "rubbish" and "scaremongering", without any analysis or documentation of why those assertions by you,Ender , are true.

Socrates had something to say about the worthlessness of an unexamined life that's valid here, I'd say.

I don't for one moment think you, Ender, are deliberately ducking the issues raised. I suspect you have never seriously examined them.

The fact it, it an important issue, and shallow responses to it undermine anyone's credibility IMHO
cheers

Coby, Thanks for your reply to my question. You agree, in relation to the medical analogy, that 'you should be told both'.

However, the IPCC hasn't told us both. They've projected emissions on the 15 billion population projection, but not the 4 billion one. I don't object to that, but I do object to the Stern Review presenting the projected emissions from the 15 billion population as 'business-as-usual' (and I could give many more examples of this sort of alarmism).

It would be wrong for a doctor to say that there's a 100% chance of a disease killing you unless you do something about it, when in fact there's a 5% chance that it will kill you and a 5% chance it will go away by itself.

You say that 'a low probability scenario is rather different from a low sensitivity model output', but you don't say why. If 'all valid models should be heard from equally', why shouldn't all equally probable scenarios be heard from equally?

Hi Ian,

The scenarios were presented with an explicit statement that there is no probablility associated with them. They are all entirely of the form IF this happens THEN temp will be between X and Y. I agree with you that this does not seem ideal and it *certainly* has caused a great deal of confusion and has given many the kind of impression you describe having. But I do think it is a mistaken impression, regardless of being understandable.

I know the IPCC ventured outside of the realm of climate science in a number of ways, I have not spent much time looking at anything beyond WG1, but I don't think they pretended to scientifically predict population and the development of technology and other similar things.

Are there no scenarios that you consider sufficiently optimistic? After all, it does not matter whether it is via free market innovation, population collapse or socialist dictatorship of the world by IPCC scientists that emissions are leveled off and then reduced through the 21st century, what matters is how much carbon goes into the atmosphere. B1 certainly seems to cover the best we can hope for (in terms of emissions, not die-offs or dictatorships!).

detribe - "don't for one moment think you, Ender, are deliberately ducking the issues raised. I suspect you have never seriously examined them."

You are right. I do not consider the scenrio that is painted here as credible or worthy of much consideration. Really it is an extension of the Frankenstein complex of mad scientists taking over the world.

When I said you detribe I meant you personally. There is only one person in the world that I can control and that is myself. You are the same. I can lead by example and influence others however I cannot control them. If you do not want to heed the message that experts in the field are saying then so be it. You will have to deal with the consequences of that decision whatever the outcome. I am setting up my life and that of my family, who wish to do so, so that whatever happens, nothing or dramatic climate change, I will stand a reasonable chance of living a quality life. A by-product of this is that the lifestyle I am setting up has much less impact on the environment.

Coby; thanks for your contributions on Jennifer’s blog

IMHO much of the comment here comes from people with no experience in the practice of measurements in physics and their interpretations. For instance only a statistician would call for probabilities of this and that. It reminds me of the days when we first digitised our recorded music. Sampling rates and scatters are pretty meaningless when considering a well matured ear. About the same time we had to have gold leads one “inch” (old imperial habits) thick before we became proper music buffs.

Analysing music from its graph in sampling terms was a challenge, likewise looking at seismic records is another skill.

Good practice can lead to good science in the end.

Today as I browsed a 2nd hand book shop, right under my nose was a thick book on British Barometers amongst the clocks and watches. This brought me home with a thud; most of instruments depicted from the late 1700’s were still around in the late 1950’s when I started, many contained some form of liquid filled glass tube and a scale calibrated “rain” and “sunshine” or something similar, clever ones had “snow”.

Lets stick my neck out again-

Coby: from what I see on the net and in the media 1950 to 2050, I reckon 2 C is right on. Reasons, we are about half way and we should expect a rate change on the way up (anything to do with natural events is non linear).

This leaves us wondering about the peak in the temp graph and all associated events, the “knee” where it kicks back down.

However I’m more bothered about the elbow where it changes rate upwards significantly because that is associated with the trigger for major ice melting. Antarctic ice is the final measurement. Only here do we have the means to find the true sensitivity of our system, with a large thermal mass that is fixed in place. All other ice sheets are a side show.

But measurements are only possible after the event has proceeded somewhat, that’s the practice. All science must follow and will be far too late for us to change the drivers.

But we can measure the resistance. Jennifer’s blog serves us well in this way.

"The fact it, it an important issue, and shallow responses to it undermine anyone's credibility IMHO" - detribe

Agreed, so detribe, how about limiting your quotations and references to material that more directly relates to the climate science issues at hand instead of oblique philosophical references to Socrates, writings on marxism and socialism, what the prince of wales said etc.

I find that frequent quoting of less-than-relevant but impressive sounding material is a sign of shallow thought masquerading as good analysis, a practice that also undermine's one's credibility.

You would expect this kind of behaviour from an intelligent, educated individual who has lazily fallen back on name dropping.

I'm sticking up for Ender because I believe that you, Detribe, are familiar enough with Ender's many comments on this blog, and Ender's generous provision of references relating to issues of climate change and renewable energy etc over many months, that your criticism is not warranted and the comment about Ender not having seriously examined the issues - suggesting laziness - is clearly false.

Thanks again Coby. Yes I know that the scenarios were presented as 'what ifs', and in my presentation to the IPCC Expert Meeting in Amsterdam on 10 January 2003 I recognised that this was the case. But I also referred to 'serious ambiguities and inconsistencies':

'On the one hand, the SRES authors state repeatedly that the scenarios 'are neither predictions nor forecasts'; yet, on the other, the blurb on the back cover states explicitly that the report 'describes new scenarios of the future and PREDICTS greenhouse gas emissions associated with such developments.'

In their response to the Castles & Henderson critique, 15 of the SRES lead authors explained that 'unfortunately the publisher mistakenly used the word 'prediction' in the short text on the back of the jacket as Mr. Castles was quick to notice .. that we as authors unfortunately caught too late to correct.

Note the double standard here. After Lomborg acknowledged and published on his website a handful of trivial errors in his sole-authored work of 500 pages, 12 leading US scientists wrote to Cambridge University Press, calling on them to convene a scientific panel to identify every error and misrepresentation in the text and add errata sheets to all copies of the book: see p. 358 in Chris Harrison's illumating account at
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/harrison_peer_review_politics_and_pluralism.pdf

But when the CUP itself made a much more serious error in the blurb (and in the abstract also, I noticed later), no one suggested that they should correct it - and Mr. Castles was given a slap on the wrist for his pedantry in pointing it out.

The statement by 17 national scientific academies in 'Science' on 18 May 2001 described the scenarios as 'predictions' (see the footnote). The Australian Greenhouse Office, in its information statement on the IPCC emissions scenarios on its website, says that these scenarios 'demonstrate' that the IPCC temperature range could occur. I have a list of examples of this misinterpretation, of which the Stern discussion paper is the most recent.

Isn't it revealing that the IPCC jumped to accuse Castles & Henderson of peddling 'disinformation' about the scenarios, but has remained silent while peak science bodies, official government websites and even the publisher have presented the scenarios as if they are forecasts.

I don't think that you'd say what you have about the IPCC pretending to predict population, technology, etc. if you had read the SRES or looked atthe IIASA website.

The IIASA probability-based projections of global and regional populations are sophisticated simulations of potential fertility/mortality interdependencies and are at the cutting edge of demographic research.

Illustrations of the way in which technological change is handled in the quantification of the AIM and MESSAGE scenarios are given in Boxes 4-8 and 4-9 in Section 4.4.7 of the SRES. Again this is cutting edge work.

I continue to be surprised that scientists think they can produce better projections on the back of an envelope than is done in these modelling exercises. Many economists have joined me in criticising some of the naive economics in this work, but I'm certainly not critical of other aspects of the technical analysis.

I can't agree with you that B1 covers 'the best we can hope for.' For a start, cumulative emissions in B1T MESSAGE are over 20% lower across the century than those in the B1 marker. Secondly, B1T assumes very high rates of economic growth which are unlikely to be realised. (When I pointed out on this blog that the Australian Government had proposed to the IPCC that it develop a new scenario along B1 lines but with more moderate growth rates, I was told that the Australian Government couldn't have expected a positive response because it had no credibility with the IPCC!)

But the most important reason for thinking that the B1 marker is much too high is to note that the medium-term projections published by the International Energy Agency, which extend to 2030, are showing lower rates of growth in emissions and a marked slowing over time. This is especially true of the Alternative Scenario which 'considers those policies and measures that countries are currently considering or might reasonably be expected to adopt taking into account technical and cost factors, the political context and market barriers.'

It's important to remember that, unlike the SRES projections, the IEA's projections are subject to the 'reality check' of the Agency's forecasts of investment requirements for energy infrastructure, and how these might be financed.

Some of the assumed new policies in the Alternative Scenario are climate policy-related, but most of them could well have been adopted anyway (e.g., tougher new motor vehicle fuel efficiency standards). Many countries have energy-security reasons for adopting such policies, but it is better presentationally, and more effective in securing external funding, if they are 'sold' as climate policies.

Of course what matters is how much carbon (and other GHGs) go into the atmosphere. And I have to disagree completely with Ray-pierre's comment that �tweaking the way scenarios are constructed is really pretty inconsequential compared to the physical uncertainties climate scientists are trying to grapple with' On the contrary, getting the 'without-policy-change' scenarios is extremely important, and is an essential prerequisite for developing well-based responses.

Steve - thanks for the support

Bugger is quite wrong in arguing that 'only a statistician would call for probabilities of this and that'. The fact is that many prominent climate scientists have been calling for probability analyses of the SRES scenarios for years. There was a large literature on this subject before the questioning of the economic assumptions began.

The subject of the Real Climate thread on which I made my posting was a new paper which presented a probability analysis of estimates of climate sensitivity.

Bugger, the scientists contributing to the discussion on Real Climate are people 'with experience in the practice of measurements in physics and their interpretations.' I don't think Coby's next posting will support your view that probability analysis doesn't matter.

Just don't forget those biospheric feedbacks guys.

http://www.greenhouse2005.com/downloads/program/GH2005_Presentation_200511161400_2.ppt

Phil has sold out, You drew our attention to this Power-point presentation before (in one of your previous incarnations) but I don't understand it in this form.

For example, you mentioned that there could be '400 ppm in it', by which I thought you meant Pep Canadell had said that there could be 400 ppm in biospheric feedbacks. Maybe I missed that, but the only ~400 ppm I noticed was in Slide 23. This shows the difference between the highest and lowest SRES illustrative scenarios.

I've just given reasons for thinking that even the lowest of these may be too high, but in any case the chart does not show the importance of feedbacks: it shows the importance of the emissions scenarios and reveals that the difference between them isn't inconsequential at all.

Is there a published paper on this? I'd prefer to read the whole argument, not just PP slides.

Of course Ian but that would be too easy. Not aware of papers as yet. Perhaps we could ask.

And I'm blogging and being a tad indulgent here. But I am also mentally integrating all those articles on peat bogs, permafrost, tundra and forests at equilibrium I've seen in recent years.
You see Ian the IPCC may have made some errors after all - maybe too low??

(The slide before shows the total biospheric uncertainty to be 380 ppm - almost as much as the 400 ppm variation in the SRES scenarios - you have to give we biologists some fun - can't just leave it to the economists now can we !) :-)

Anyway getting back to the theme of this thread that all this climate change stuff is all uncertain. I reckon the avalanche of evidence that it's happening is overwhelming. Anyone who's confused is hanging around the wrong sites and discounting an awful lot of phenomena.

What you can debate though is the future scenarios. And what the consequences might be.

Somehow in all of this - my main concern - the spectre of increased drought. Heatwaves and big hurricanes maybe. But back to back drought is really difficult and goes on and on. We don't know enough yet.

Let’s face it Ian: underneath all this clever rhetoric and devious maths is your denial. And you are outside the real measurement brigade. Cut through and be done, simply.

What I want to know here is; who set out to make a farce of any climate change measurements by their comments on Jennifer's blog.

Phil, There's nothing new in this, and nothing to ask for as far as I can see. The uncertainty in biospheric feedback of 380 ppm that's referred to in Slide 22 is similar to what was allowed for in the climate projections in the TAR: see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/030.htm , and note in particular the statement 'Uncertainties, especially about the magnitude of the climate feedback from the terrestrial biosphere, cause a variation of -10% to +30% around each scenario.'

The effect of the feedback adjustment was to expand the range between the highest and lowest of the six illustrative SRES scenarios from 430 ppm (i.e., between 540 and 970 ppm) to 770 ppm (i.e., between 490 and 1260 ppm). As I understand it, it was the latter range that was used to derive the IPCC's 1.4 to 5.8C range of temperature increase.

Note that the biospheric feedbacks are expressed as a percentage around either side of the projections of concentrations from the emissions scenarios. So this is a further reason why it's wrong to describe the differences between the emissions projections as inconsequential. The scale of the biospheric feedback uncertainties depends on the size of the CO2-equivalent concentration range without feedbacks, which in turn depends on the emissions scenarios.

This appears to be an example of the phenomenon that von Storch referred to in his presentation to the NAS hearing in Boulder - the 'spiral of ongoing practice of slight exaggeration results in the formation of significant misinformation in the public realm.'

The A2 scenario relies on a global population projection which its own creators agree is extremely unlikely. This leads to an overstatement of the prospective level of emissions, which leads in turn to an overstatement of CO2-equivalent concentrations. Then this overstated level is boosted by 30% to allow for the uncertainty in biospheric feedback. And this is the level used to project the prospective increase in temperature which Stern then presents as the outcome of business-as-usual.

Bugger, Thank you for your last two pieces of advice, but I don't intend to 'cut through and be done' unless someone can explain to me where I'm wrong. If I am, I'll readily admit it.

Ian; lets have it this way, I once knew a lot about measurements but I'm the first to admit I know nothing about climate science.

Your turn now.

So Ian - for yourself - at what point do you think we need to take action on CO2 emissions and by how much ? Or do we need to know more and wait. And are you happy for example to allow nuclear substitution.

And why stop with Ian - what say you Rog and Joe and all others - if you were President of the World what would you suggest on CO2 emissions ! Come on - declare yourselves. This is it !

Er PD: first get an admission there is a trigger by our elbow and well away from our knee.

Me thinks all this gassy stuff is way beyond them. Meantime they’re aiming at their common foot.

PiddlesDone, Action on curbing GHG emissions is already under way all around the world. There's no need to wait : it's happening. The main barrier to progress is the counter-productive 'targets and penalities' approach embodied in Kyoto and, as the Lords Committee recommended, the first priority is to wean the international negotiators away from this approach.

The Lords Committee went on to say that 'Hence there should be urgent progress towards thinking about wholly different, and more promising, approaches based on a careful analysis of the incentives that countries have to agree to any measure adopted.� I agree.

The sterility of the Kyoto approach is best indicated by the fact that, between 1990 and 2003, Canada's GHG emissions increased faster than Australia's. This is true on all of the standard measures: total emissions, emissions per head and emissions per unit GDP. It is also true on all of these measures even if land use changes are excluded.

I believe that there are grounds for hope that the new Canadian Government will steer that country away from the Kyoto cul de sac. It is also encouraging that Italy, one of the big four economies of the European Union, has announced that it won�t be part of a post Kyoto deal that involves mandatory emissions targets.

So I take it Ian that you support these measures of curbing emissions then and further action ?

Pee pee done is still iddley daydreaming (..if I were President of the World..)

I think he was weaned way too early.

>Of course what matters is how much carbon (and other GHGs) go into the atmosphere. And I have to disagree completely with Ray-pierre's comment that �tweaking the way scenarios are constructed is really pretty inconsequential compared to the physical uncertainties climate scientists are trying to grapple with' On the contrary, getting the 'without-policy-change' scenarios is extremely important, and is an essential prerequisite for developing well-based responses.

Ian, we know that models/paleoclimate data give a climate sensitivity which varies by about 300% (from about 1.5C to 4.5C). Beyond 2050, biospherical feedbacks have the potential to add around 200ppm by 2100 accoording to the Cox papers referenced previously.

Prehaps you might care to tell us what the reasonable uncertainity is in CO2 concentrations at 2050 and 2100 and the difference between estimates based on MER and PPP analyses.

David

Phil, I support the objective. There are lists of specific measures that may be adopted in various countries and regions in the IEA World Energy Outlook 2004 that I've cited. Many of them look sensible to me, but every measure has to be considered on its merits. I don't agree that any measure that reduces GHG emissions must necessarily be a good thing, no matter what the cost in terms of other economic and environmental objectives.

For example, I'm sceptical (yes Phil, sceptical) about regulations requiring ALL new dwellings to reach specified high energy-efficiency standards at costs that will raise the price of ALL new homes. Many new home buyers may want this, and that's well and good. Others may not. From what I've read of a study by the Productivity Commission, the reductions in GHGs resulting from such regulations turn out to be minuscule.

David, You asked me about PPP vs MER a fortnight ago, and I gave you a lengthy reply upon which you've never commented.

In the meantime, could I suggest that you take a close look at the graph on p. 2 of the Australian Greenhouse Office's article on the IPCC emissions scenarios, in the Hot Topics series at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/hottopics/index.html

Note the position of the 'low SRES' (no climate change policies) line in relation to the high and low lines for 450 ppm CO stabilisation, and bear in mind that the IPCC did not take up the Australian Government's suggestion that the IPCC model a variant of the B1 scenario with more moderate (i.e., more realistic) rates of growth in developing countries.

So Rog - you haven't got a clue then. You'll just ridicule me rather than say anything useful which basically typifies the complete moral bankruptcy of your philosophical position.

>David, You asked me about PPP vs MER a fortnight ago, and I gave you a lengthy reply upon which you've never commented.

You provided a lengthy response but failed to provide hard numbers to back your statments. What we need are ppm values (say at 2050 and 2100) from which we can readily calculate temperatures using our prefered climate sensitivites.

David

David, The descriptions on the relevant lines of the graph on the official Australian Government site to which I have referred you read 'SRES low' and 'IPCC Scenarios for Stabilisation.' I assumed from these descriptions that these projections of increases in temperature are based on IPCC projections of ppm values. I also assumed that these ppm values were known to CSIRO when they prepared the article: how otherwise could the graph have been produced?

Is it possible for you to get access to these values so that you can apply your preferred climate sensitivities to them? I understand that the Annan and Hargreaves paper recently published in GRL essentially confirmed the range of climate sensitivities used in the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

As explained in my earlier postings on this thread and in my recent postings to Real Climate, I believe that the International Energy Agency's Alternative Scenario provides the most realistic projections of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for the period through to 2030. These projections are roughly consistent with the IPCC's B1T MESSAGE scenario, the temperature projections from which are labelled 'SRES Low' (the blue line) on the graph on the AGO website.

Ian - "between 1990 and 2003, Canada's GHG emissions increased faster than Australia's"

I think that you will find that was mostly caused by the oil rush in the Alberta Oil Sands.

Phil,
I'm casting back away but I did say in my first post that I find many AGW sceptic blogs also run on a party line basis.
Sorry for the delay - been interstate!
Jim

What, more waffle Ian?

Its not even good management strategy and I've seen plenty of that from enough different sources to know.

Can you put your finger on anything important to us, like a stab at 2050?

Yes, Bugger, the CO2 concentration for the lowest IPCC scenario would be about 440 ppm in 2050 and 480 ppm in 2100.

The end-century figure of 480 ppm was quoted by Dr. Tom Wigley at the IPCC Expert Meeting on Emission Scenarios at Amsterdam in 2003, and was recently confirmed by Ray-pierre, one of the moderators of the Real Climate website. It is 70 ppm less than the projection for the B1 marker scenario for 2100 given in the SRES Tables in Appendix II of the WGI Contribution to the TAR. I made my stab at 2050 by interpolation, using the cumulative CO2 projections for the B1 marker scenario and the lowest IPCC scenario (B1T MESSAGE) given in the SRES.

Ender, I agree that the oil rush to the Alberta Oil Sands was probably an important factor in the growth in Canada's GHG emissions. The mining sector accounted for 13% of the country's total emissions in 2003, and the official Canadian report says that there was a significant increase in this sector since 1990 which was attributable to growing production of fossil fuels, mainly for export. Exactly the same could of course be said of Australia.

I don't see that it matters what caused the increase in emissions in either country. The outcome to date seems to suggest that Canada's acceptance of mandatory reductions under the Kyoto Protocol hasn't made any difference to its emissions, and that was my point. Of course Canada has taken measures to reduce emissions below what they would otherwise have been, but so has Australia. I find it difficult to believe that Canada will ever have a government which is prepared either to stop the mining of the Alberta Oil Sands or to penalise the rest of the country as an offset to the growth of emissions from this source. Do you think that this is likely?

No Ian - Australia has done nothing serious. The "pseudo-Kyoto greenhouse accounts" have benefited from Queensland banning tree clearing - no Commonwealth support. And Queensland producers ripped of for millions of dollars of carbon and some producers now left with properties they would have never purchased - no development allowed. Salinity hazard now seen to be dodgy perhaps. Also the Kyoto Australia clause introduced by the Commonwealth just this swiftie. But it's only a one-off. Won't be there next time and task now harder than ever. And also no recognition for graziers' woodland thickening which is sequestering megatons or any compensation for the real value of forgone development - 3x more beef per hectare perhaps. All the subject of a banned QDPI report. Ask Ian Mott !

And for another joke - I suspect the farming sector will be the ones also copping the brunt of climate change.

Our real urban energy growth has kept going. See how many split level air-cons and other white goods are leaving Harvey Norman etc !! And many new homes built like Tuscan villas - hot-boxes with no eaves and mandatory tack-on air-con. And lots of nice urban SUVs. Many more kids driven to school than in my day. (Don't get me wrong I'm wearing sack cloth myself and don't like telling individuals what to do, but when you add it all up!)

Ahhh thanks Ian!

What about a stab at the likely Temp in 2050?

But from the top down hey.

I didn't say Australia had done anything serious Phil. All that I said was that, like Canada, it had taken measures to reduce emissions below what they would otherwise have been. I'd be the first to agree that the taxpayer is getting a poor return for $1.8 billion (isn't it?) spent on greenhouse reduction programs, but surely there's been some return?

In my earlier note I pointed out that Canada's emissions had risen more than Australia's between 1990 and 2003 - in absolute terms, in per capita terms, and in emissions per unit of output. I also said that this was true of all indicators WITH LAND USE CHANGES EXCLUDED.

Your remarks about tree clearing, salinity, woodland thickening etc. are important in other contexts, but they don't go to the point of relevance here - which is that there's no sign that the acceptance of mandatory emissions targets by Canada made a jot of difference to what would have happened anyway.

Bugger, David told me that 'What we need are ppm values (say at 2050 and 2100) from which we can readily calculate temperatures using our preferred climate sensitivities'.

I don't knowing what those preferred climate sensitivities are, and would prefer to wait until David advises us. However, as you've asked me to take a stab, I'll do so. According to the simple model SRES projections in the IPCC Report, the projected temperature increase between 2000 and 2050 for the B1 marker scenario, taking the average of seven models, is 1.05 degrees C. For the lowest IPCC emissions scenario, the corresponding increase would be slightly less than this. So it's around 1 degree C.

Well Ian - this is an evolving dicussion - we don't just have to talk about what you want. I'm not aware apart from land clearing that Australia has really done much except talk. and despite all our collective angst and hot air here on this blog as to whether AGW exists, whether globally we should act, whether its a socialist/greenie plot, whether the IPCC are crooks and whether the SRES scenarios are wrong... - the average Aussie has just kept going. Has anyone really cut back. Is anyone really worried. Maybe a few percent.

OK Mitsubishi has done something:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/car-plant-plan-25-trees-per-vehicle/2006/04/05/1143916577082.html

Car plant plan: 25 trees per vehicle

Car maker Mitsubishi will plant 25 native trees for every locally made 380 sedan it sells to the South Australian Government in a scheme to make the cars carbon neutral.

The company today said it would plant the trees at its test facility near Tailem Bend, east of Adelaide, where they would offset the carbon dioxide emissions of the government vehicles.

Is 25 trees enough ??

And yes - "mandatory targets don't seem that mandatory" - neither does "self regulation" - what happens if one breaches a mandatory emissions target - do you get locked up - visited by the Yakuza - trade sanctions - or does everyone just go - "tsk tsk". Answer is obvious.

But of course if stored carbon had a value in a global sense .. ..?!

Ian Castles - "Do you think that this is likely?"

No I don't. Refer to my previous comments. I do not think that anything short of disaster will get in the way of people making money. The only way to make an agreement on emissions work is large monetary penalties for non-complience backed by economic sanctions if the penalties are not paid. No-one will of course agree to this sort of regime so the emissions will continue to whatever happens - disaster or nothing.

Phil, You've said that your main concern is the spectre of increased drought, and also that anyone who is confused about whats happening on climate change �is hanging around the wrong sites and discounting an awful lot of phenomena.'

Well I've been hanging around the sites of Greenhouse 2005 (which you've recommended on several occasions) and the Australian Academy of Science (AAS), and I'm not nearly so sure about the spectre of increased drought as you are.

Have you read the presentation �Climate Change: Wetter or Drier?' by Michael Roderick & Graham Farquhar of the ANU and Leon Rotstayn of CSIRO at the Greenhouse 2005 Conference?

These are respected scientists. Graham Farquhar is Distinguished Professor in the Research School of Biological Sciences at the ANU. He is a Fellow of the AAS and of the Royal Society, and was a lead author of the carbon cycle chapter in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. Two of the Roderick & Farquhar papers on pan evaporation have been published in the International Journal of Climatology.

Roderick et al said in their Greenhouse 2005 presentation that �At global scale, an average of GCMs suggests a 2% increase in rainfall for every 1 degree rise in temperature', and that there were observed increases in global rainfall and Australian rainfall over the past century. Their key conclusion was that �Global averaged trends to date are for �Greenhouse: more rainfall, less evaporative demand (as distinct from �Brownhouse: less rainfall, more evaporative demand").

The paper had previously been presented at an AAS Workshop which I attended in November 2004 (�Pan evaporation: an example of the detection and attribution of trends in climate variables"). The Proceedings have been published by the AAS, and the Preface by Roger Gifford includes the following:

�The widespread failure of potential evaporation to increase on land, with several reports of widespread declines, as the world warmed, and unexplained decreases in solar radiation, indicate continued gaps in our climatic understanding. For reliable climate prediction we do not know enough of the fundamentals of how greenhouse gases and aerosol accumulation influences atmospheric humidity, cloud formation and cloud properties, solar radiation, whether greenhouse warming involves an intensification or dampening of the hydrologic cycle, and how ocean evaporation responds to greenhouse warming.

�A deficiency of the [climate] models is the poor level of understanding and treatment of ocean evaporation, and of clouds and their effects on short-wave as well as long-wave radiation at ground level as influenced by greenhouse gases and aerosols. The observations strengthen the need for more careful theoretical assessments of (i) whether or not Australia (and other places) will get drier as temperature increases and (ii) whether cloud feedback will strengthen or diminish global warming.

�It is affirmed that global atmospheric warming does not necessarily mean a more drying atmosphere or a drying land surface."

Commenting on these paragraphs in a briefing by the NSW Parliamentary Library Reference Service on �The Science of Climate Change" (Background Paper 1/06), Stewart Smith writes that �It could be argued that not knowing the basic physics of whether clouds increase or decrease global warming makes it impossible for a greenhouse model to accurately project the future." I'd be interested in your comments on this view, and on the findings of Roderick et al as reported above.

Ian; we could be impressed with your progress in this thread but I reckon you still have those kid gloves on with these figures. How about a bare knuckle scenario that we can all get stuck into in terms of ‘Real Climate’ remedies?

What this country need is some proper leadership from people of your calibre, none of this sitting on the edge now, waiting for someone else to make the first move in reasonable predictions.

I’m all for appropriate motivation sooner not later.

Ian at least try to reflect our Federal Government’s latest position. I reckon that’s your job on here so we have the inside running on it all..

Thanks Steve,
It happens that lazyness is not a reason that I was thinking of when guessing that Ender had never though of the angle I was raising.I had in mind something more like unconsiously self-imposed mental blinkers, and feel his response confirms that.

Its blinkered conformist thinking causes the acceptance of flawed seemingly good ideas like socialism, not simple lazyness.

As for my quotes, including Socrates. Its shorthand, rather like Phil's constant references to Real Climate. We don't all have the time to patiently type all that we want to bring to bear on the topic.

And as far as the relevance of my previous post, if you are trying to claim political type convictions and emotionalism have nothing to do with the positions often taken here,or by Climate Lobby Groups elsewhere, you're surely kidding or bluffing.

Don't we have Green Political Parties in numerous countries doing exactly that.

I have a whole book written on the theme, explaining the political dangers of environmentalist totalitarianism, ending with the wonderful lines:

"We will be lucky if the consequences of the totalitarian regimes of our time, and the wreckage they have left behind in so many parts of the world, pass with the waning of this century. Will we then allow green utopianism simply to replace red utopianism?
If so, there is no guarantee that, simply because the first time was tragedy, the second will be farce."
I'll leave these words stand for themselves with out giving the author. If you don't think totalitalianism has dangers worth considering, or that we should ignore lessons of history, I simply disgree with your judgement.

detribe; that last throw away won't save you or us in the next event what ever that may be.

The danger is in the exclusiveness of any entrenched position.

Don't think me rude for not replying to your latest message to me, Bugger, but I can honestly say that I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Ian - yes I know Graham and Michael - what splendid distinguished fellows they are. But there are other aspects. I'm fascinated Ian how you'll take party line on some things but not others. Picking some things to death but perhaps leaving some things undone. Get that intellectual tyre lever into everything !

The reduction in surface radiation is most likely due to global dimming. If we clean up aerosol pollution radiation will increase back to "normal". Given radiation more than temperature is the prime determinant of evaporation we can expect more evaporation. Although temperature has some effect in evaporation (along with wind and vapour pressure deficit).

Comment has already been made about the severity of the 2002 drought by the distinguished Neville Nicholls with higher temperatures and higher evaporative demand from the increased temperatures. Greenhouse droughts may be more intense in evaporative demand.

And of course we had many more El Ninos than La Ninas since 1976. Whether this is just random variation of some AGW effect is debatable. the TAR does not attribute an effect from AGW. Although various distinguished climatologists have suggested a change in the Pacific to a "mean warm state". We'd have to be gamblers to live on the receiving end of the Southern Oscillation wouldn't we?

We may get more rainfall - but where ? Australia may have had more rainfall over the century - but where ? It isn't where people live and our agriculture is - eastern Australia and SW WA.

See similar stories in Africa and Brazil.

A variety of preliminary modelling research indicates an interaction between depletion of stratospheric ozone (changes in the circumpolar vortex) combined with greenhooue warming, being part of the mechanism. Changes in southern hemisphere ciculation patterns.

All our state capital cities have water supply problems. Despite recent rainfall Brisbane storages are critical. Gladstone's industrial complexs went near critical in recent years. It was not an option for Gladstone power or aluminium to go off line - $100M pipline to the Fitzroy anyone?

Central Qld has a multi-decadal drying trend. Queensland cyclone climatology on the east coast has changed in recent decades to almost zero before Larry. Shear forces across the cyclone formation regions perhaps which again is borne out of the models may be an explanation.

We don't know enough. But we do know enough to be concerned. And we do know what our track record is over the last 20 years.

We do know how many dollars have gone out in Exceptional Circumstances funding. Many producers have had their quota of dollars for one in 20 severity droughts for the next 200 years ! See you in 2200 !

And we have some factors like the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation in there for fun too.

SO what would you expect as a signal emerges from the current sea of variability - maybe what we're seeing now ? You can argue either way. I'm a blogger not a distinguished climate scientist so I can take a punt and have no distinguished reputation to be risked on a defintive statement.

But have a good luck yourself? Enough to be concerned?

Ian - golly you're a big name dropper !

"He is a Fellow of the AAS and of the Royal Society"

You love this stuff don't you ? Halls of power indeed !

Cherry picking - again!

Listen Phil, you criticise me for my ram raids and now here I find you blatantly copying my style. Sure I'm flattered and as we all know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but I must profess at being just a tad uncomfortable that you have found that the desire to emulate me to be just so unresistable.

I would prefer it if you stayed with your previous personality, that of furiously linking RC (as in climate not catholic). Sure it is not a personality of any greatness but hey, at least it's your own.

Phil, The very first comment on this thread was 'I'll tell you what it does show ; there is absolutely no way a layperson can do anything other than rely on the majority opinion of experts.' So how are we non-scientists meant to identify the most eminent experts, except by such indicators of high achievement as election to learned academies?

As a biologist, you must know of Graham Farquhar's standing in the discipline. Many other followers of this blog wouldn't know. Surely it's useful information for them to know that he's been elected to two learned academies, both of which elect a strictly limited number of scientists each year.

I don't agree that providing this information is name-dropping, nor do I understand the point of your reference to 'halls of power'.

detribe do you think that liberalism has dangers worth considering?

You not unfrequently tell others they have a tainted perception of matters, a bias of legacy etc. Are you above such biases? Can you tell us what method you use to ensure that your thinking and your expressed opinions are unblinkered, or least less biased than those you say suffer from a bias? And how can be sure given that one is usually unable to perceive the limits of their own paradigms?

Do you deny that your outlook *conforms* reasonably closely to the typical outlook for your profession? Is your profession 100% bias-free and without emotion, affects of history, reasoning and logic, etc?

detribe do you think that liberalism has dangers worth considering?

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill
might apply with some modification.
Lets be aware of out limitations, not deny them.

You not unfrequently tell others they have a tainted perception of matters, a bias of legacy etc.
Well finxi, how many regular commenters here avoid that particular situation (apart from Ian, who's a Saint). And when I suspect people are on the wrong track, should I not say it so its understood?

Are you above such biases?
No but I'm open to free exchange of argument and accountable to well established facts. I also ensure accountability and transparency by not being anonymous, or pseudonymous.

Can you tell us what method you use to ensure that your thinking and your expressed opinions are unblinkered,
See above.As I imply, it doesnt work 100% perfect, like democracy.

And how can be sure given that one is usually unable to perceive the limits of their own paradigms?
Here being open to honest argument and new ideas is a way forward.Dismissing them at the start is not.

Do you deny that your outlook *conforms* reasonably closely to the typical outlook for your profession?
Outlook on what. My approach to matters where science is relevant is pretty typical.

As for other matters, I'm not sure, and probably don't conform at all.I'm actually ONE OF A KIND like most of us, except some clones.

Is your profession 100% bias-free and without emotion, affects of history, reasoning and logic, etc?

NO, but what's that got to do with it.

We're taking about arguments here, not professional obligations. I'm not speaking for any profession, but bemused by your group labelling approach. Doesn't seem very classical liberal to me.

Rog - ram raids ? cherry picking - I am talking long term trends ? no idea what you're on about actually. But golly you're an aggressive little varmit aren't you. If you engaged in a discussion now and again it would be refreshing (Phil imagines Rog like the Tasmanian Devil cartoon character on Bug Bunny).

Ian - lots of the scientists quoted in papers listed here are very famous in all sorts of roles and societies. Perhaps we could start listing the CVs of all people we quote from the literature. Anyway excuse my protestation. They are indeed learned gentlemen and scholars.

Anyway Ian excuse my preoccupation with drought. It has seared my consciousness.

OK caveat: Indulgent rant follows:

Wouldn't it be ironic if the USA being the God-fearing and SUV driving nation that it is, turned the Pacific in a semi-permanent El Nino ironically with their agriculture benefiting from more temperature in the wheat belt, more rain, and more CO2, while we Aussies dry up. Bloody yanks !! Can't live with 'em - can't live without 'em. I wonder if they've already done the modelling?

Ian - we're a gambling nation - see you have to look for ring-ins and the odd long shot.

Ian won't cotton that last bit Phil

detribe; when you write "My approach to matters where science is relevant is pretty typical" I have to respond with it's not how some of us see see it from your posts.

detribe you say you're open to exchanges and I would agree that you are, but in those very exchanges you commonly accuse people who question your views (in the interest of open exchange) or who express views different to yours of having a bias. You often make these high-brow accusations instead of actually trying to understand what the other is saying, ie it interferes with your ability to have an open, learning exchange. I've had some frustrating experiences where although we had a good exchange you repeatedly kept arguing against not what I've actually said, but something else that you expected that I was probably saying, ie you were arguing against your own biased expectation. I didn't make a big deal of it at the time, except to point out where you misunderstood me. However since then I've noticed that you accuse others of behaviour that you exhibit yourself, so I suggest you re-examine your own biases or get off your high horse.

The point on your profession is that it's within the capacity that you often give your opinion on this blog. You mentioned conformists in your post above. I was pointing out that many of your posts here express a view that largely conforms with most from your industry and is influenced by your education and industry related experience. We'd all be within our rights of making various accusations of bias on that front but we don't. I don't think you should be so quick to accuse others that question you or disagree with you as suffering from blinkered thinking when you have no basis on which to suggest that you have an unblinkered outlook.

If you have to assign bugs bunny characters

stinky = tasmanian devil
pee pee = foghorn leghorn
ender = elmer fudd
bugger = yosemite sam

That's all, folks!

At least we're popular and bring pleasure to millions with our antics as opposed to our resident little Lord Fonteroy.

thinksi I dont think your remarks relate very much to my last three posting, and I can't at the moment see myself talking in terms of bias. My previous questions and quotes are subjects for discussion: apparently you dont want to discuss those subjects.

My only critical remarks were that Ender didn't really grapple with the issues I raised. I stand by that.I still think he didn't.

You at the moment are jumping to some rather strange assumptions about me: but I don't call you biased, neither do I mind, I just think that you should be asking more question before rambling on about professions and industry in terms that dont make sense as far as I'm concerned. When I misinterpreted you, I listened to you- how about listening to me when you misinterpret me?

If anything I'm in the teaching industry plus infectious disease detection industry, and there not much of that here or in my questions. I'd be happy to be considered a biologist but can't for the life of me see how that connects to your remarks or has much to do with with my last few comments.

>As a biologist, you must know of Graham Farquhar's standing in the discipline. Many other followers of this blog wouldn't know. Surely it's useful information for them to know that he's been elected to two learned academies, both of which elect a strictly limited number of scientists each year.

In the Australian context, it is now very clear that any attempt to interpret pan evaporation changes as indicative of problems with our understanding of the enhanced greenhouse effect were premature. This story is rapidly going the same way as the MSU. Keep an eye out on the literature!

More broadly, there is a range of modelling which shows that the interaction of aerosols and greenhouse warming can lead to apparently paradoxical increases in temperature and decreases in evaporation (in the short term). In the long term greenhouse longwave radiation increases will swamp aerosol short wave forcing unless we continue to make our atmosphere more and more smoggy. The work of Beate Lipert (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/bpe/lipert.html) who attended the academy meeting is a good place to start if you want further information.

David

I posted something yesterday but it does not seem to have shown up, oh well. The thread moves on quickly.

I basically do not have nearly the familiarity with the SRES scenarios that Ian does, so cannot really offer much constructive comment.

I do however get a bit of a creepy feeling thinking about the developed world planning to move ahead without restraint counting on massive die-offs in the third world to ensure emissions will not become a bigger problem. Perhaps I don't understand the cause of population crash that lead to 4 billion in 2100?

Please come in again coby and expand on your fears.

Phinxi; I see your battle with these scientists from another angle, needless to say I have worked with and for enough of them over the years, its usually some form of elitism not bias that cuts the rest of us out of their circle. With diatribe though his lefty green openings are more about a personal copout than a discussion.

But mind you Phinxi, truly great people including scientists hardly hint when discussing their pet interest where they are coming from. Sincerity that leads to mutual trust is the elusive quality we are all looking for.

It would surprise some here but I actually found it with people like Brown, in another context Halfpenny and Carmichael when I had to depend on them with other people’s fortunes in life. But it was a personal struggle for me to come to terms with their public profile in every case.

I had similar thoughts waiting on an operating table for my surgeon to appear when he was off negotiating his AMA fellows pay with the Government in the glare of the media after a doctors strike.

Guess what he did first up in the theatre in his fine suit? Apologised to his team and went straight to work. Luckily I had plenty of time to tell them what had to be done so I came out all strung like a new violin. It took months but I eventually slept flat again.

Jennifer: I reckon the blog is all about who do you trust with our future.

David, Thanks for your comments on pan evaporation. I attended the AAS conference and heard Dr Liepert's presentation as well as those of Roderick & Farquhar and the comments from Rotstayn. I haven't tried to keep up with subsequent developments and doubt if I could have understood them anyway. Does the current consensus position give support to Phil's deep concerns about droughts as a consequence of AGW?

yeah bugger - elitism is a bias of perspective. we're all blind to our dearest paradigms.
I'd also like coby to expand on the die offs.

detribe Steve said above you were off-track. I was making a general remark based on a series of observations. Enough said, I'm not going to elaborate. If you're open to exchange and challenging your own perspective as you say, then you'll give it some consideration (and respond directly to what the other actually says rather than pursuing a tangent based on what you expect from them).

What's really good about this blog is to have two simultaneous unrelated conversations going on seamlessly on the one thread, with Rog occasionally insulting one or more participants. Where else can you get this? While enjoying the company of DISTINGUISHED gentlemen such as Ian Castles esq in robust conversation.

Thanks Coby, I can set your mind at rest at once. The 4 billion projection of global population isn't part of a scenario, let alone a plan. It comes from the Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, which produced the population projections used in most of the SRES scenarios (including the 15 billion projection in the A2 scenarios which the Stern Review has adopted as business-as-usual).

It's not at all the case that the projection assumes massive die-offs in the developing world. On the contrary, average life expectancy in developing regions is far higher in IIASA's 4 billion projection than its 14 billion one. Population declines because people aren't born, not because they die prematurely.

IIASA's low population projection (2.5% probability of the future population being as low or lower than this) assumes that the population of Western Europe decreases by 57% across the century, and the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe by 75%. Sub-Saharan Africa doesn't decline at all and the population of the Middle East increases by 15%.

It must be emphasised that these large population decreases aren't considered likely. The point is that the probabilistic projections by the world's leading research centre in this field find them to be just as likely as the 15 billion population that the SRES presented as 'plausible' and that Stern presents as 'business-as-usual.' It is this sort of alarmism that I find unacceptable: I'm surprised that many scientists can't recognise this.

I should have mentioned that the population of 'Centrally PLanned Asia' (this is mostly China) is projected to decline by 60% across the century in IIASA's low-end projection.

Yesterday's 'Financial Post' (Toronto) carried an open letter to Canada's new Prime Minister from 60 scientists, calling for a review of Canada's greenhouse policies including Kyoto. Most of the signatories are Canadians, but there are some from other countries including three DISTINGUISHED Australians (Bob Carter, Bill Kininmonth and Ian Plimer). You can see the full list of names and the text of the letter at www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

Eeeekkkk - a veritable gaggle of contrarians - clutch? swarm?

But just a cotton pickin' minute - what's this bit mean?

"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future."

This is a bit of a try-on isn't it? And what say they to the wide range of global phenomena related to warming we now see. Too slick for me !

One day we'll see someone do a balanced view I suppose.

Phil, I'm interested in your reaction. Presumably the sixty experts who signed this letter did so after a careful reading of the text. You have quoted a statement in the letter and imply that it may be 'a bit of a try-on' and that the letter is 'too slick' for you. In other words, you doubt whether these people believe what they've said. You question their integrity.

In relation to the majority of signatories who are Canadians, do you have any reason to doubt their good faith? Are you familiar with their work and their standing in their various fields of specialisation?

You ask 'what say they to the wide range of global phenomena related to warming we now see.' I know what a few of them say because I've read some of their work. I know what some of the others have written on subjects other than climate change, and so I'm very interested to see their names on the list. I hope that the 'balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions' that are proposed in the first sentence of the letter take place.

Integrity isn't the word with your Australian members - moreover "belief system", "paradigm", "degree of balance in the view".

I won't be uncharitable and question their integrity.

They're not my Australian members Phil: they are three Australians who signed an open letter to the Canadian Prime Minister, who've joined about 60 others in what you choose to call a veritable gaggle, clutch or swarm of contrarians.

I deliberately cast my questions to you with reference to 'the majority of signatories who are Canadians' , and you've chosen instead to give us your opinion of the three Australians.

Do you think the Canadian signatories to the letter to the Prime Minister are engaged in a bit of a try-on, Phil? It's a simple question.

Yes !

Be interesting if you take out all those who are not climate scientists working in the current day - I think it's an outrageous letter, utterly unbalanced and the global cooling quip a slick bit of sophistry. I hope the Canadians are grateful for the advice as the beetles munch unchecked through their forest resources enjoying the relative warmth.

Ian Castles - Have you actually looked at the letter?

"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models"

How can computer model predictions of the future be supported by observations evidence? Also this implies that the AGW is only supported by computer models which is a falsehood.

"The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled."

Have a look at this timeline and decide for yourself if it an 'emerging' science
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

"It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe"

This is just plain wrong

I can pick 3 or 4 glaring errors in fact so perhaps the signatories did not read it properly.

I read that letter, it is an embarrassment. Amongst all the hand waves that strike me as completely detached from reality, two things stuck out.

"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future."

and

"It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. "

The first, about the models, is hard to argue as they do not specify what observations they think do not fit the models. I am frankly not aware of any serious contradictions. It is likely this is an oblique reference to James Hansen's 1988 testimony and Patrick Micheals' subsequent perjury about it to the US congress in 1998. I have debunked that persistent urban legend here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/hansen-has-been-wrong-before.html
It could also be a reference to satellite readings of upper and mid tropospheric warming. However last year, Spencer and Christy redid this anaysis yet again after uncover further errors and this warming is in fact in agreement with model predictions. That was a big blow to the "What warming" crowd. You can read some detail and see some references here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/satellites-show-cooling.html

I note that Roy Spencer is one of the signatories, he should know what his own results are.

The second quote about predictions from the 70's is also an urban legend (I'm being kind, many if not most of the people signing to that should know it for the lie it is, especially as they have stated it).
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.html

I am not a believer in arguments from authority or attacks on credentials, scientific arguments must stand on their own. However, this letter, as I said above, is one big hand wave with nothing specific or substantive to address, so I feel justified to note that most of the signatories are not climate scientists and it includes the usual batch of sceptical political economists and the regular cast of denialists for hire: Micheals, Baliunas, Singer, Peiser, Jaworowski, Essex, McKitrick.

There some demonstrable liars in there.

Sorry, that letter is garbage.

As a Canadian, I felt obliged to blog about that:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/oh-canada.html

There are legitimate controversies and legitimate uncetainties to discuss, like Ian's criticism of the choice of scenarios, but it is high time to move beyond such transparent falsehoods as are presented in that letter. And as time goes by, there are fewer and fewer excuses for serious people signing their names to them.

Of course I looked at the letter, Ender. I was invited to be a signatory but declined on the ground that its contents were outside my area of competence.

Thanks Phil, Ender and Coby for the comments and links - I've read some of these before and have in fact discussed several on this blog. I posted the link to the letter for information and hadn't intended to trigger a discussion on substantive issues. But I don't accept that experts of this calibre sign letters without reading them, and I don't accept in its generality the allegations about 'the regular cast of denialists for hire.'

>Does the current consensus position give support to Phil's deep concerns about droughts as a consequence of AGW?

As a rule, actual evaporation and rainfall will go up rather slowly with global warming (current estimates are for a few % increase at doubling of CO2). As a rule, this is in proportion to the increase in total radiation at the surface, remembering that the enhanced greenhouse effect recycles some long radiation back to the surface which must then be removed (through a combination of radiation, latent heat, and sensible heat). However, against this background there will be winners and lossers in the precipitation-evaporation stakes. It is very likely that high latitudes will become much wetter (as indeed they have over recent decades) and seems quite likely that subtropical arid regions will become drier.

>Phil, I'm interested in your reaction. Presumably the sixty experts who signed this letter did so after a careful reading of the text. You have quoted a statement in the letter and imply that it may be 'a bit of a try-on' and that the letter is 'too slick' for you. In other words, you doubt whether these people believe what they've said. You question their integrity.

If this is a popularity contest, surely the 1000s of scientists involved in the IPCC process win hands down - many of these are active climate scientists, which also helps. Of course, it is not a popularity contest, and the science and observations speak for themselves.

David

Ian Castles - "But I don't accept that experts of this calibre sign letters without reading them"

No I don't either but how do you think such they could sign such a document when 5 minutes of research could have told them that it contained falsehoods? Where they just sloppy.

David, Thanks for your response on the drought issue. Without wishing to put words in your mouth, it seems to me that what you've said broadly confirms the statement in the Preface to the report on the AAS workshop that 'It is affirmed that global atmospheric warming does not necessarily mean a more drying atmosphere or a drier land surface.'

I think it's also relevant to note John Zillman's statement that 'Little reliance should be placed on regional projections of climate change' (in his presentation to the Australian APEC Study Centre Conference, 'Managing Climate Change: Practicalities and Realities in a post-Kyoto Future' , April 4 , 2005),

On your second point - the claim that the 'thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC process win hands down' - I can only say that present procedures make it impossible to know what ithose thousands of scientists think about chapters with which they haven't been involved, and there's room for doubt about what they think of statements in chapters with which they have been involved.

I've written to the Coordinating Lead Authors of several chapters in the WGII and WGIII Contributions to the TAR, but none has acknowledged errors in the Chapters concerned and all the signs are that these errors will be repeated in AR4. The IPCC's disregard of the internationally-agreed conventions are having serious consequences for economic statistics which I'll shortly be documenting.

Richard Lindzen was a Lead Author of Chapter 7 of the WGI Report, but if I want to find out what he really thinks I'd prefer to rely on statements for which he's accountable (e.g., in his letter to the new Canadian PM) than the conclusions of a chapter with which he apparently disagreed.

I provided comments on a number of chapters in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and I'd like to think that I improved them. But I resisted efforts to have my name included in the long lists of reviewers, and I'm glad I did so - because no indication is given of who assisted with what chapters, and I certainly wouldn't want it to to be thought that I'd endorsed the volume on 'Scenarios' (which I never saw until after publication),

I don't know where Coby gets the 'usual batch of sceptical political economists' from. I can only find two signatories that could fit that description: Ross McKitrick and Kees van der Kouten (but I relise that it's sometimes diffucult to tell subject matter fields from the brief descriptions on websites),. 

I'll wait to hear the scientists' side of the story before jumping to the conclusion that they've signed a document when 5 minutes of research could have told them that the documents contained falsehoods. The same goes for the other signatories.

Ian; I don’t know precisely where Ender is coming from but if we let the problems of economics like extending the scenarios one way or another determine how we eventually saw up a green tree to build a house we would all still be living in caves, except the engineers amongst us.

Science like we have with the procrastination over climate change won’t save us. Sorry mate.

How many of these people theorising and writing on the various channels of thought and posting stuff here and there are actually engineers Ian?

Ian - define regional? John Zillman is obviously a respected scientist in the field but there are differing opinions. CSIRO for example.

Ian - there is no point in getting their side of it. You will easily get an example of two - or you can make things sound greyer than they are. This is the art of sophistry. And if that doesn't work - try bagging "an individual" like Hansen, Erhlich (irrelevant really) or Schneider). You have to decide do you want to take a gloomy position on the state of the science or think that it's lining up well in a broad sense. You can do this from a political or environmentalist or citizen or scientific perspective

A lot of the signatories have been trying it on for ages in this area. They moved from sceptical to full-on anti - their position is now most clear. Their web sites have no doubt. It's all attack attack. I have no respect I'm afraid.

In this case they have merged the Kyoto issues with the climate change science. Do they have to be linked.

Anyway let's assume they influence the PM. My prediction is that the evidence will keep piling up and someone in 10 years time will say "wish we'd acted 10 years ago".

Try this for a local issue:

'Rapid Warming' Spreads Havoc in Canada's Forests

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801772.html

In terms of drought you haven't pondered our own record on drought since 1976. Out drying trends. Now past history. No scenarios needed. What I get from farmers is "who cares about 2070" - I'd really like to know about the next 20 years please. Very difficult. If you look out the eastern Australian window - all is not well.

Hi Ian,

'usual batch of sceptical political economists' was probably trying to pack too much in a single phrase and in the heat of the moment, I confess that letter really stuck in my teeth so to speak.

Benny Peiser is another name to add to your short list.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-about-peiser.html

I was really conflating professions with the arguments this group of people make publically. This letter was an attack on the scientific basis of AGW theory, it was not the legitimate agitiation about what is the best thing to do about it.

I may sound harsh, but it is really a question of integrity and intellectual honesty, which you have or you do not. I would think that putting one's name on a letter to the Prime Minister in a prominent newspaper would prompt some careful consideration. Clearly this is how you felt and the fact that you declined because you were outside your area of competence shows you take such considerations seriously, I commend you.

But several of these people have shown repeatedly they have no integrity at all. That is Michaels and Singer most specifically, Essex and McKitrick also have shown a serious lack of intellectual honesty in Taken By Storm.

The rest, well the letter says something serious about them, IMHO.

Ian; have a look at this if you can, an article in Forum today Canberra Times 8th April 2006 “Crisis mounts in Snowies” – “If these trends persist, then by 2050 temperatures in the alpine region could rise by almost 3 degrees with precipitation decreasing by up to 24 per cent”.

Regardless of your sentiment for the hapless alpine wombats, it’s also your power and water that’s affected in the same way also everybody’s food chain. BTW what sort of music do you play while pondering these predictions?

Ian its time to stop pussy footing round with the science sceptics and go back to the arts.

Go and have a look at Peter Dombrovskis' photographs in Flora Tasmanica at the National Botanic Gardens and see this heritage amongst other things there. This is my recipe for fixing some of the chill on this blog at the local level.

http://www.anbg.gov.au/anbg/exhibitions/flora-tasmanica/inde