And how open minded do think attendees at a conference called "Gobal Warming sceptics" would be, my guess would be very few. Most would be confirmed sceptics who like you wave an increasingly pointless flag for climate change nay saying. And who feel somehow justified in ignoring and rejecting mountains and mountains of comletely independent yet consistantly confirmatory evidence.
Please note at this time, that I never use the term Global Warming (although Prof Don Diablo harps on about global warming all the time), this is a misnomer as far as I'm concerned. The debate centres around anthropically generated un-natural rates of climate (sun, wind,rain,cloud, evaporation, weather event frequency, intensity, duration, timing, seasonality, etc etc etc)change, its about much much more than just temperature.
You seem convinced of the voracity of Lord Monkton's argument. I remember him as a not very effective cronie of Maggie Thatchers.
Lets examine Lord Monkey's scientific credentials to refute anything scientific shall we.
Early years spent thinking Nanny was his Mummy and forming a life long relationship with a teddy bear called Rodger. Once he was old enough to realise Nanny probably wasn't related,he was shunted of to prep school and Harrow where he learned, well, we all now what the prefects do, don't we,(not baseless rumour either!!) and no doubt he enjoyed his prefect years very much too!
Harrow is classics not science. And is full of inbreds and half wits (problem of a lack of hybrid vigour in a limited gene pool, poor darlings), I know I used to play them at rugby regularly. I went to a state school I hasten to add.
Never mind, long conversations with Roger the bear got him through these "Harrowing years".
He then started his science career in earnest, attending Churchills Cambridge to study an undergrad degree in, surprise surpise, Latin and Greek literature. Having completed this "comprehensive scientific training" he then decided to further his scientific career by doing a "Diploma in Journalism".
Very handy if you are born with a hereditary seat in an influential parliament that you never have to earn by merit, and if you want to write articles that suggest superficially some relevance to the climate change debate, but which are in reality as politically skewed and biased by politcal motives as any article you can find.
Not so handy if you want your critique of scientific evidence to be taken seriously by scientists and the critically minded. You may think your critical prhb but so far your evidence is dodgy beyond belief. Sucked in by a toffy nosed journo, prhb, that really demonstrates the shallowness of your critical thinking in spades.
This is politically motivated writing not impartial scientific writing. If you read a good science paper it is always completely devoid of personal opinion. It is neither relevant to the work or desirable for the scientists credibility, so it is left out. The facts must speak for themselves. And you must base you position on these, and these alone.
Why do you believe the word of this non-scientifically trained, plummy mouthed, journo tosser, over the consensus opinion and views of the most prestigious science organisations on earth?? I really don't see how this is logical or reasonable. Please explain??
Don't prattle on about some grand conspiracy, its the people most likely to be the conspirators, the money and the power people who have been the hardest to convince. So no conspiracy. This is bottom up change, slow and hard but irrepressable and inevitable. This is a story of lots of little people with no voice, gradually under weight of increasing volumes of evidence, changing the opinion of the scientific establishment, and now finally convincing the majority of the public and the pollies that all is not well on the Blue planet. Business as usual will kill us, if its not already to late to change.
So as you can see, Lord Monkey's, training and knowledge is more than up to criticising the work of thousands of scientists who have spent entire live's in the pursuit of knowledge using scientific methodology. Many of whom can quite rightly and justly claim to know more about their particular fields of expertise than anyone else who has ever lived.
Do not dishonour these dedicated and devoted men and women of science by quoting the purile thoughts of some buggered, silver spoon enabled, teddy bear hugging, nanny fixated, goon journo like Lord Monkey. Its disgraceful.
And while we on about disgraces, Prof Don Doolally's attack on a dead person is disgraceful, disrespectful and thoroughly repugnant. Rachel Carson died in 1964 so what this lovely, beautiful,inciteful Lady of science has to do with his paper is anything but clear. Rachel Carson achieved more in her life time than, Prof Donny Demented and Lord Monkey will ever achieve in their longer and more priveledged lives, even if they live there lives ten times over. Same goes for Paul Erhlich and his partner. Donny Dangerous and Lord Monkfish are total non entities compared to Rachel whose legacy still shines brightly.
RIP Rachel Carson 1907 -1964, a Jewel in the firmament of human history, that will light the way for years and years to come. We are truly blessed that you lived your life with us.
http://www.rachelcarson.org/default.aspx
Do you think his attack was senile dementia???
I can only imagine his audience wincing with embarressment at his comments.
By the way, I haven't seen Gore's little fable of damnation. Its not a peer reviewed paper. And Gores not an expert in any aspect of climate change (take that back, he is expert in political discourse on the subject, but he can't tell me why glaciers around the world are retreating at a rate that is unprecedented in recorded history. Or why, Inuit settlements are sinking into thawing perma frosts. That have never previously thawed. Or why, Birds are migrating earler or later than ever recorded. Or why we are able to seriously consider a north-west passage for ships, something never previously achievable in maritime history. Or why precipitation on the Swan Coastal Plain is lower than it has ever been in 10,000 or 20,000 thousand years, based on wetland sediment samples. Can he???
Its not whether one or two of the science acadamies of the world agree with the IPCC, its that the vast majority (if not all) explicitly endorse as official policy the findings of the IPCC, the most rigorously peer reviewed document in history.
As far a political cohersion by the UN is concerned, well the US control the UN, and they have been virtually (apart from Australia)the last nation on earth to continue to reject the findings of the IPCC. So why would an organisation, controlled by the US, find in favour of the evidence for undeniable, anthropically generated, rapid, climate change. Surely, they would have manipulated the UN to find in favour of Bush's pet position of denial. Your accusations of political manipulation just doesn't make any sense. The IPCC did not do the original research they simply reviewed the primary research and evidence submitted by thousands of independent scentists, most of whom acted perfectly impartially during their research and investigations. Not all their work will have been honest, some cooking of the books, will have occured. Scientists are human after all, and some get tempted by the idea of success to a degree where data is "made to fit". Science is, however, exceptionally good at rooting out these abberrations eventually. It is impossible to hide a lie in science for too long, before it is found out and the perpetrator professionally ruined.
All the World's greatest official custodians of scientfic wisdom have reviewed the IPCC review endlessly and are of the opinion that on the whole the report presents a picture of future climate change, its consequences and its causality, that is wholey consistant with the actuallity of the situaton. And have said so, publicly.
Why do you not find this convincing?
Especially since you admit to not being knowledgeable on the subject, or at least admit some people know more than you do.
Why do you adopt a position and think it reasonable, when the majority of the worlds most learned scientific instituitions unanimously and explcitely endorse the IPCC position, the reverse of yours and a tiny tiny handfull of other sceptics.
There is no serious opposition to the IPCC view, you are delusional on this one. Yes, there are ongoing debates about the finer details,you would expect that. But there is NO DEBATE, climate change driven by mans activity is fact.
The most important fact about this however, is not climate change per se, we all know that the earths climate swings through various cyclical climates, ice age to sweat box and back again. This is and never has been the debate. The point is the rate of change (in the absence of a meteorite strike or super volcano eruption) it is outside the normal parameters. And, crucially we have so many families living on the planet now, that we can not afford the luxury of even mild peturbations to agricultural food production that climate change will bring.
You will always be able to find dissenters, but they are woefully out-numbered, and increasgly so as the evidence continues to mount. For every 100 papers confirming anthropic climate change,you might be lucky if you find one expanding the contrary view.
The Nations of the world and political institutions are being brought to the position of accepting climate change one by one and the need to change the "business as usual model" you advocate. Most have come kicking and screaming as they go. With huge reluctance from elements within political constuencies that have the most power and money, and therefore influence on the political systems.
If you are doing all right why rock the boat, or accept the boat being rocked. And boy, big business has spent a bundle trying to prop up a "scientific" counter point to acceptng climate change and the need for change. I am a sceptic, for me its too late, the battle is lost already. Things are going to get much much worse over the next century, the sheer lack of momentum towards change at this late stage dooms us.
I would check out Don's references at the end of his paper, they are very shaky and thin for a serious "scientific work". I would expect 20-30 good peer reviewed scientific journal articles per paper (mostly in important works you see many many more!). Don Darkley's references remind me of a first year science undergrad assignment and the work itself is full of holes you would expect of an undergrad.
It definitely is not full of references from reputable peer reviewed journal articles is it, I think there are three journals mentioned, non except one, are directly referenced. This smacks of a position not well backed by overwhelming fact. It is amateurish a best.
Where is your list of peer reviewed academically published science journal articles denying anthropically generated, rapid, climate change? It would have to be a bloody long list to gain traction now. Or an extraordinary incite, such as e=mc2, or evolution by natural selection.
Where is your list of articles suggesting all the results attributed to climate change are entirely and unavoidably natural and completely unaffected by mans actvities. I could supply thousands and thousands.
