Budawang

The deniers don't hesitate to bang on about a month or season being colder than average. I'm not claiming the current hot summer we're experiencing in Australia is "proof" of climate change, but it is interesting that the last three consecutive months have been well above average with November smashing the previous record by a wide margin in much of south-eastern Australia. In fact, I think every summer in the last 10 years has actually been above the long-term average in Canberra. Maybe a statistical blip or aberration? Maybe, but it's unlikely.

BTW, I've done plenty of statistics.

Burbage

Who are these deniers you're talking about? The ones who deny that climate change is natural or the ones that deny that it is man made?

If you've done any statistics at all you'll know that your post was utterly meaningless.

Anyway, there is no one who denies that climate change is occurring. It occurs all the time. Has done so for 6 billion years on the planet Earth. No one denies that currently we are in a warming trend. A lot of people, particularly the ones who understand the science of modelling complex systems, have severe doubts about the ability of a bunch of UN bureaucrats to accurately find their arse with both hands, never mind predict the climate in fifty years time.

slapphead_otool

One of my disputes with AGW is no one has yet determined what a “normal” aberration or blip is.

In fact, by saying “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” we are implying that the temperature is static, which of course it isn’t.

It is a very confusing subject.

Centurion

Climate change skeptics are not denying that climate change is happening and I would doubt that you could find one half sensible person who would point to a month or year being colder than the previous year as evidence of some IPCC conspiracy.

It would be easier for the IPCC and climate change proponents if that's what skeptics were arguing. Unfortunately (for them) intelligent critical thinking about a subject tends to be a whole lot harder to shut up than just using a logical fallacy to shove "deniers" in a corner like that.

Burbage

You can easily see that the meaningless terminology from the IPCC spin doctors automatically gives a negative view of people who don't agree with them. Budawang is a case in point, and is quite happy to negatively view people who are "deniers" or "skeptics" without any idea of what they deny or what they are skeptical about.

NO ONE DENIES THAT CLIMATE CHANGE OCCURS. Therefore THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTIC.

The term skeptic or denier can be equally applied to both sides of the argument anyway, as long as it is defined. Calling someone a "denier" is meaningless unless you state accurately what it is they deny. Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but obviously people like Budawang are falling for political spin, not scientific debate. If we don't deal in scientific debate the political leaders in this country are going to pull off the greatest con of their own taxpayers in the history of the "democratic" world.

Neil52

Australia is the highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita in the developed world.
Oz will suffer more than most as the hole above it grows bigger, even if man has little to do with global warming would it not be sencible to try and cut back on emmisins just in case.

Australians were found to be the world's worst polluters per capita, producing five times as much CO2 from generating power as China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092989.stm


http://www.1degree.com.au/node/787

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...g_on_Australia

Lord_Farquar

Is that you Ian "I am made of Teflon and will dodge your questions" Plimer?

P.s. It's "Sceptic" in Australia.

NedKelly

The calculation should be done on the emissions per sq. metre. On that basis I would think we would be one of the lowest emitters.

iolande

Why do those who are sceptical about the models always seem to err to the nothing is happening end of the scale? Why don't they say things like:

• The models are shonky and are far too conservative in their estimates, the seas will boil by 2024!
• The IPCC is politically motivated and is protected Big Oil by pretending that the earth will only warm by 2 - 4 degrees
• If we don't kill all the cows now, we will all choke to death within a year (with a special nod to the Camel Scientists)

iolande

DON'T MENTION OUR SQUARE METERAGE! Someone will notice and insist that we take lots more immigrants!

Budawang

Oh dear, I've really got you goat up. I will have to clarify. When I used the term "denier" I really meant "people who deny that human-induced carbon dioxide emissions are warming the earth's climate". Is that clear enough for you?

Yes, of course the earth's climate is not static and it never has been. However, there is clear evidence that the rate of change has increased substantially in recent decades.

I wouldn't say the IPCC are "a bunch of UN bureaucrats" (if that's what you're suggesting). Believe it or not, the IPCC is mostly made up of scientists.

Is climate change science "settled"? Heck no, there's a huge amount we don't know. However, it's clear there is a strong probability that humans are the main cause of recent global temperature increase. To deny otherwise, is to deny the vast majority of scientific opinion. (please note, I did not say "there is absolute certainty that humans are the only cause of global temperature increase").

MartinLuther

And if Aus went carbon neutral tomorrow it would make almost no difference to the world's carbon output.

Per sq km Aus' carbon output is one of the lowest in the world

And the hole's been closed a while now. I think you might be mixing things up a little

Burbage

No one has proved that the moon isn't going to crash into the earth yet either, doesn't mean we have to nuke it.

There is no evidence that the earth has warmed up in a way that is significantly different from natural expectations in the last century. None whatsoever. Therefore there is no strong probability about anything unnatural causing it since nothing has been observed that is particularly unusual.

In fact what is unusual, if you look at geological history, is how stable the climate has been for the last 200 years or so.

What the IPCC act on is a mathematical model. THey do not use evidence at all.

Centurion

Completely agree. Henceforth I wish to be referred to as an IPCC sceptic, because I'm sceptical of the IPCC science, evidence, conclusion and motives.

Sadly I feel you are right about the greatest con this country will ever see.

Budawang

Perhaps the single main reason why many Australians are geniunely concerned about AGW has nothing to do with the IPCC. The average punter has little or no understanding of whether IPCC scientists and methods are credible or not. Many Australians (particularly older ones) have direct, anecdotal, evidence that the climate in this part of the world HAS changed significantly. I remember summers in the 70s when we occasionally put on our heating which is in stark contrast to the last couple of summers. There is nothing "scientific" about such observations but it helps explain why there is genuine concern in Australia (and many other places in the world) about AGW.