The Bullroarer - Thursday 17th July 2008

Canberra Times - Catching the wave of renewable energy

Australian renewable energy technology will play a key role in helping Britain meet its interim greenhouse emission reduction targets.
Sydney-based company Oceanlinx is one of four wave energy device developers chosen to take part in creating the world's first large-scale wave energy farm, 16km off the coast of Cornwall.

Sydney-based company Oceanlinx is one of four wave energy device developers chosen to take part in creating the world's first large-scale wave energy farm, 16km off the coast of Cornwall.

Stuff.co.nz - Oil companies hold firm on prices

Oil companies are standing by their pumps as the Automobile Association calls for a three-cent drop in petrol prices after crude oil prices dipped.

Crude oil prices have jerked up and down in the last week, with Texas crude diving $6 a barrel on Tuesday in the largest single session drop since 1991.

AA spokesman Mark Stockdale said it took time for crude prices to flow through to refined, a major driver of pump prices, but this time there was certainly room for a 3c-a-litre cut.

Oil companies, however, have said the AA is out of touch with the oil pricing game; and they are holding prices firm.

ABC - Thinking through our move to a low-carbon economy

Ross Garnaut has made a valuable contribution to the necessary and difficult issue of climate change. Irrespective of the debate about the urgency of action, it is wise to adopt the precautionary principle that says we do not wait until we have certainty before we begin preparing for a low-carbon future.

News.com.au - Greens attack fuel excise cut

"The best thing the Government could do for Australia is to use the fuel excise to invest in public transport," Senator Milne said.

The Australian - Nelson backs ETS fuel excise cut

PLANS to include petrol in an emissions trading scheme, but with a cut in the fuel excise to offset a cost increase, have won support from Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson.

But Dr Nelson says the excise cuts should be permanent, not temporary, as the Rudd Government has proposed.

Reuters - Australia considers first new coal port in 25 years

CANBERRA, July 15 (Reuters) - Australia's Queensland state is considering new coal mines and the country's first new export terminal in 25 years, investments that could increase shipments from the world's largest exporter of the commodity by 40 percent.

Bloomberg - West Australia Restarts Collie to Ease Gas Shortage

Western Australia, generator of more than a third of the nation's exports, restarted the state's biggest power station late yesterday, helping to ease a gas shortage that may cost A$6.7 billion ($6.4 billion).

The coal-fired Collie Power Station, able to produce 330 megawatts of electricity, will reduce the shortfall triggered by a June 3 explosion that damaged pipelines at Apache Corp.'s plant on Varanus Island, state Energy Minister Francis Logan said in a statement today.

The Age - Aussie oil, gas industry 'could suffer'

Investment in Australia's oil and gas industry could decline as companies that provide drilling, engineering and construction services reallocate their skills to work with national oil companies, a survey says.

National oil companies are shifting from allowing foreign ownership of reserves to utilising service contracts, as the price of oil increases, according to a survey by professional services firm KPMG.

International service companies now have the opportunity to expand their business model from being specialist contractors to operating entire projects on behalf of national oil companies.

"In the context of the global oil and gas industry, Australia is a small component, and if service companies reallocate their resources to large NOC [national oil companies] opportunities and projects, the potential exists that the Australian industry will suffer," KPMG's Brent Steedman said.

The Age - Plan trashed as $7bn down a hole

IF SIR Rod Eddington's $7 billion rail tunnel is built, the Brumby Government will have used the largest infrastructure investment in Australia's history to mask its incompetence, and that of rail operator Connex, a public transport advocate says.

Sir Rod's proposed rail tunnel from Footscray to Caulfield was not needed, and would be built only if mistruths were

believed, RMIT transport planning lecturer Paul Mees said in his submission to the Government's Eddington review.

Sir Rod and the Government's transport department argue the tunnel must be built because the rail system is approaching capacity.

But Dr Mees said overcrowding was occurring on Melbourne's trains because there had been a 25% increase in peak-hour passengers over the past five years but almost no increase in peak-hour trains.

Regular announcements of extra trains by the Government were "pure spin", Dr Mees said, because all but a handful were either added to off-peak periods or were extensions of existing services.

NZ Herald - Cost of train work alarms local body politicians

Auckland transport politicians are alarmed that their region's share of almost $1.9 billion of rail improvements will be at least five times higher than the local cost of upgrading Wellington's trains.

NZ Herald Brian Fallow: The price of keeping lights on

It looks like the winter power scare has passed. What a relief.

We also learned this week that consumer electricity prices have risen 6.6 per cent over the past year. Over the past five years the average increase has been 5.5 per cent.

But evidently these relentless rising power bills have not brought us a more secure electricity supply.

We go through this drama just about every other year: 2001, 2003, 2006 and again this year.

A distant observer, perhaps one contemplating investment in New Zealand, could be forgiven for thinking the electricity supply hangs by a thread.

Energy Minister David Parker says it is ridiculous to describe the recent rains which have replenished the hydro lakes (though they remain well below average) as lucky.

"We don't criticise farmers for planting crops in the expectation of rain and sunshine. Likewise we do expect rain to fall and fill our hydro lakes on a yearly basis," he said.

Radio NZ - Petrol, food rises push inflation to 4%

ABC - Emission trading revenue should go back to households: Origin

The company planning to build a gas-fired power station at Mortlake says revenue raised through an emissions trading scheme must be funnelled towards households.

The Age - How to reduce emissions?

[For] Professor Jeffrey Sachs the timing was perfect; for Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong, it was somewhat less so. The economic adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon breezed into Canberra's Australian National University this week to announce that emissions trading - the Rudd Government's biggest weapon in the fight against dangerous climate change - was, in effect, a dud. It was, he said, messy, complicated and bound to be unpopular.

"It's such a mess administratively. It covers only a fraction of what needs to be covered. It's hard to implement, it's hard to monitor, it's not transparent, it's highly manipulative - which is why the banks love it," he said.

Tackling Climate Change Together , NT Media Release, 17 July 2008

Chief Minister Paul Henderson says the Northern Territory will continue to work with the Federal Government and industry to tackling climate change.
“Climate change is one of the most important issues facing Australia and the world,” Mr Henderson said and “The release of the Federal Government’s green paper of climate change is a key step forward in tackling the issue, generating important discussion between the community, business, industry and Government on how to best move forward together.
“I welcome the Commonwealth’s decision to exclude the agriculture industry from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
“I am also pleased the Federal Government has moved to ensure motorists will not face increased petrol prices as a result of the establishment of an ETS.
“The Northern Territory’s emissions profile is different to the rest of the country – for example, the majority of our emissions are generated by savanna burning.
“We also have significant opportunities, such as the development of our LNG industry to meet growing demand as the world turns to cleaner sources of energy.
“Through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), and in meetings with the Prime Minister, I will be working to ensure the Northern Territory’s unique circumstances are considered in the development of national Emissions Trading Scheme.
“In particular, the Northern Territory Government’s submission to the Green Paper will call for the LNG industry to be supported at the maximum rate of assistance under an ETS.
“The Territory Government is currently developing the NT’s first Climate Change Policy that will address our climate change challenges and opportunities facing the Territory.
“I will continue to work with the Commonwealth and industry in the development of a national response to the important issue of climate change.”

Here's an MP who gets it:

ABC - MP challenges state electricity report

Smart meters and the solar thermal industry could obviate the need for a new base load power generator in the medium term, according to Port Macquarie MP Robert Oakeshott.

Mr Oakeshott has called on his fellow MPs to question some of the statements contained in the Owen Report into the Electricity Industry. He describes the report as thin on research and thick on political agendas, and says its claim that the solar thermal industry cannot deliver base load power is just wrong.

Mr Oakeshott says domestic savings achieved with the help of smart meters can delay the need for new base load generation well beyond the 2013 deadline in the Owen Report. "If everyone moves to smart metering, and in fact I've found out they are rolling it out now, so its more than just a trial, they're actually smart metering homes all over the place, which means these are substantial savings that are happening now, and change the game a fair bit."

The claim that solar thermal can't provide baseload has major implications. It means under the ETS that coal fired generators could be on permanent compo or free permits. Either that or a switch to gas fired baseload which will run out before coal. It may also mean that renewables targets get harder and harder to meet after 20%.

On ABC Lateline there was an item with Marn saying
1) Australia 'needs' 135,000 migrants
2) undeveloped gas leases will be confiscated.
Here's an alternative view;
1) Australia has enough people who can be retrained if necessary
2) gas needs a long term plan with strategic reserves.

Solar thermal can provide "baseload" power (if you must obsess about this nebulous idea from an age when much of the supply was static and demand wasn't price aware).

There are already lots of countries that get far more than 20% of their power from renewables - the question is who will be first, and when will we get there.

Al Gore is apparently proposing that the US make the shift by 2020:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/17/144426/316/203/553055

Probably a little ambitious, but I'd hope that by 2040 - 2050 this is the reality - plenty of time to depreciate the existing stock of generators and replace them with solar/wind etc.

Boof,I agree Australia has enough people,either for retraining or any other thing.This immigration nightmare is just making everything worse by increasing demand for resources,including energy,creating a future food supply problem and reducing the quality of life through overcrowding.

The baby bonus should be consigned to wherever idiot social welfare is scrapped.I would think a migration level of about 10,000/year would be about right.This is actual migration,not net.

The KRudd government appears to be determined to OutHoward Howard - ie - a government composed of of retards.

Regarding the UN envoy's comments on Australia's abysmal performance on greenhouse gas emissions -
The first and most obvious step to remedy this would be a statement by the federal government that no more coal burning power stations would be built and there would be a crash program to build alternatives - solar thermal,geothermal,wind and nuclear.

Pigs might fly.

Reading this 1.8 MB pdf from the aluminium industry
http://www.aluminium.org.au/Page.php?d=1281
they reckon they've done the hard yards on efficiency. I gather if they can prove that alkaline bauxite waste absorbs CO2 they'll be looking for a carbon credit. However they use 14% of Australia's electrical output or more than 3 GW continuous average. However I see no mention of shifting electrical demand for time-of-day or availability. On p14
The industry is dominated by continuous base load electricity demand.
Dunno how you can do that with wind or solar.

Surely you aren't serious ?

By generating power from a wide range of renewables (distributed by both type and geography), by implementing a reasonable amount of energy storage, and by managing demand (via smart grids and dynamic pricing), you can generate the required amount of power across the grid.

This has been explained many times here now.

Do you not understand it, or are you just trolling ?

Sorry if this gets anyone's knickers in a twist but.....

www.theaustralian.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-5013480,00.html

I'm NOT saying that I necessarily agree with this on face value, just putting it up for debate.

Hi Lefty,

It's Denialist Porn... ("Boltfodder"!)
Evans has posted these views previously - with colourful graphics of the supposed "missing signature" - in 2007. (http://mises.org/story/2795)

Evans is not a climate scientist, he's

"a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer."

As far as I can see (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/reports/tr28final.html) the Carbon accounting model that he claims he "wrote" was completed back in 2001, and he was really the junior co-author. The "model" is an Excel spreadsheet!
(Gee, I'm glad Evans thinks he's a "rocket scientist". Maybe that means we Engineers who've churned out a few heuristic spreadsheets all have "the right stuff"!)
;-)

I've been searching just now to try and find out exactly who specified that a particular tropical high-altitude temperature profile should be the CO2 Greenhouse Signature - but no luck so far, Evans and everybody else who regurgitates his stuff simply refers to "UN Climate Models". Well the UN's a pretty big and diverse, and often self-contradictory, organisation. I smell a "straw man" argument!

The Bureau of Metrology graphs at the start of Penny Wong's Green Paper Summary clearly show what's happening in the real world. Warming and drying is real for us here in Australia - and the whole situation is not being helped by the hot air generated by the remaining denialists.

Hi Cretaceous.

Hehehehe, "Boltfodder" - I like that one! Akkerman fodder?

He isn't denying climate change though, merely disputing the cause. 31 000 scientists (and engineers I guess) signatures seems a fairly significant number agree with him. Unless they are falsified.

Evans may be exaggerating his credentials but he may also have a point regarding the level of human induced change versus natural change. Climate change to and from warmer/cooler/wetter/drier has been a constant fact of history long before the industrial revolution. The Daintree has grown and shrunk numerous times, expanding when it was wetter and shrinking back to along rivers and creeks and gorges in drier times.

I know this is not a popular veiw here but I just want to know the truth.

Re: Evans -

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/DavidEvansbio.html
http://timlambert.org/2004/11/lavoisier/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lobby_groups/Australia

As for the 31,000 "signatures" I couldn't find any reference to this (at all) in the article - where did you get that from.

Evans is just a propagandist for an astroturf outfit that is just another name bolted on front of the HR Nicholls society.

Its easy to make a whole lot of assertions without any references to data or paper in a newspaper. Its much harder to do so in a peer-reviewed journal - which is why this stuff only exists in conservative media outlets, not the literature.

Very informative links Gav. Thanks.

I've now added "astroturf" to my lexicon! ;-)

organizations that preach the gospel of environmental education ... actually industry shills. They have earthy names but clandestine roots.

Lefty,
The important point for you to realise about Evans' piece is that "disputing the cause" delays the solution.

There are powerful established interests in Australian society who imagine that they'll be dead before anything happens on Climate Change, and that they certainly don't want their gushers of income to be shut off in the meantime. It's amazing that the amount of lobbying money available hasn't bought better shills than David Evans, but there you go.

But in fact their actions are an enormous threat to the future viability of Australian lifestyles in our own lifetimes. The most frightening risk from climate change is that most of our coastal infrastructure (up to an elevation of 6m) will suddenly go under sometime within the next 20 years. This potential damage makes the risks from terrorism look like a joke.

Lefty, since you're an "Australian" reader, maybe you spotted this...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23053212-11949,00.html
...But how's *this* for an update...
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/06/25/2283071.htm ... !

(Hey Gav, we in Sydney may actually need Morris Iemma's second airport if Mascot goes under - although Williamtown is only 8m above Sea Level! The good news is that Badgery's Creek is 82m ASL.)

Hmm. Rapidly melting antarctic ice kinda shoots down the theory that ice melting is caused by rising ocean rather than air temperatures, originating from something in the sun or deep in the earth itself - most antarctic ice rests on frozen land, not water.

However, the article also mentions the occurence of several warming and melting events over the past 75 000 years - cleary unrelated to human activity. How can we be certain that this is not just another of the same? That's a fair question isn't it?

I haven't read Gav's links yet, I'll do that before commenting further.

Hi again Lefty,

Yes, a very fair question. You're quite right that there have been several Antarctic melting events in the last 75,000 years. However Science has a pretty good handle on explaining the causes.

The main cause of ice-ages is the steady wobbling of the Earth as it spins on its axis, a bit like a wobbling spinning top. The wobble is caused because the Earth's spin is offset by 23 degrees from our plane of orbit around the Sun, and then our Moon has a further orbital offset of 28 degrees from the Earth's plane of rotation as well.
(Did you ever have a Spirograph when you were a kid? http://www.pietro.org/Astro_Util_StaticDemo/MethodsNutationVisualized.htm )

Anyway, the result of this wobbling is a big variation in the amount of solar energy landing on the surface of the Earth at various latitudes. These variations have been named the "Milankovitch Cycles". I'll let you read about them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

My point in laying out all of this data is to say that because Science can now explain the past history of ice ages, that's why we can be so sure that the current warming is "not just another of the same", as you put it. The West Antarctic ice will melt in the usual unstable way, but the cause of it will be *us* this time, not the wobbling of the planet.

At the moment, the natural Milankovitch cycle should be taking us towards global *cooling*, but in fact this "natural" signal is being completely overwhelmed by the "Greenhouse Effect" of our own emissions. Every year it ticks inexorably up (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), and we are probably already well past the "safe" level.
(http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/nasas-james-han.html)

There are further impacts on the planetary temperature from effects acting longer-term than 75,000 years, such as Continental Drift changing the pattern of ocean currents, and the natural balance of CO2 in the air. For instance, most of our oilfields appear to have been originally deposited in hot anoxic ocean conditions during natural runaway greenhouse events. (http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/resources/)
But once Nature has sequestered enough carbon, things settle down again.

Here is the link Gav. It has nothing to do with Evans himself though I thought some of his material I read last night actually lead me to this. Doesn't mean it real, just means it's there.

www.petitionproject.org/index.html

I am as anti-HR Nicholls society as they come but it would be hardly surprising that anyone who stands to lose badly from severe cutting of carbon emissions would recruit a spokesman to present alternative veiws - but could there be some truth in those veiws?

I once believed unquestioningly in global warming being entirely man-made and a "delicate balance of nature", just as I once believed that capitalism would soon be swept away by a glorious revolution of workers. I no longer believe in the last two (though I am still pretty socialist in outlook) and I have lately seen some reason to doubt that global warming is all due to human activity. Unless you can point out something I have missed or haven't yet taken on board (which is entirely possible) I would like to know what makes this particular warming event (which I think I read somewhere ceased in 2001 and has actually reversed since then) man-made and not part of a natural phenomonon like all the others preceeding it?

Bloody hell - for a lefty you're pretty gullible when it comes to taking political propaganda at face value (no offence - but jeez).

Have you tried checking out who put together that load of tosh ?

From the Union of Concerned Scientists :

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz

Of the 31,000 "scientists", over 2000 are doctors (for example) and only 9000 have PhDs (including the doctors) - pretty much anyone can sign the petition. Would you expect to get a definitive answer on this issue from your local GP ?

http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/05/lurgees-paradigm-iii-31000-scie...

Scientific American looked at 30 signatures (at random) from the petition and 26 were verified as being scientists. Of the eleven who said they still agreed with the petition, only one was a climate researcher with releveant research experience, two had relevant expertise, and eight said they signed on the basis of informal knowledge. Six said they would not sign today, three couldn't remember it, one was dead, and five did not respond.

DeSmogBlog has the most comprehensive rundown on the topic I've found :

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067

Robinson "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming." (source). Robinson is the founder of a group called the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM ), which markets, among other things, a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and books on how to survive nuclear war.

In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute , released a petition on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol that was so misleading it prompted the National Academy of Science to issue a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol.”

The infamous "Oregon Petition"
The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself. In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute , co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science . They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Oregon petition and big tobacco
It’s interesting to note that Fred Sietz, the author of the cover letter is also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition. It also seems that Seitz is still “sufficiently rational” to sit as the Chair of notorious climate change denier, Fred Singer’s, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Oregon Petition and the Spice Girls
According to the May, '98 Associated Press article , the Oregon petition included names that were intentionally placed to prove the invalid methodology with which the names of scientists were collected. The petition included the names of "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' " Of the fake names, Robinson is quoted as saying: "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake."

Robinson admits he is not a climate scientist
Of his own admission Robinson "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming," and an ISI database search of publications confirms that Robinson has never published any research in the area of human-induced climate change.

Here's another one - "Another Climate Change Scientist Tells Skeptics: Stop Misusing My Research"

http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=58817&keybold...

A prominent American scientist studying the possible effects of climate change in Antarctica has written a strongly-worded opinion piece in the New York Times telling skeptics to stop using his name and that of other researchers to prop up their claims that global warming is a hoax.

Peter Doran, an associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois-Chicago, is the latest scientist to say that climate change deniers are misusing the conclusions of his data to try and create a false impression of the science.

Writing in The New York Times Thursday in a piece titled "Cold, Hard Facts", Mr. Doran expressed dismay that skeptics have prolifically circulated the work of his team to suggest the Earth, overall, may actually be cooling rather than warming. While his study documented localized cooling in one region of the Antarctic Continent over four years from 1996-2000, he said the skeptics seized upon it and created a legend of doubt that has only grown in magnitude.

Indeed, Doran's work has been cited by right-wing thinktanks associated with the fossil-fuel industry, members of Congress, and others ranging from Ann Coulter to Michael Crichton to refute the thickening and already substantial body of evidence confirming that, overall, Earth is heating up.

"Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear' and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism,'" Doran writes. "Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that 'the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.' I have never thought such a thing either."

In fact, Doran notes (capitalization used for emphasis): "The disappointing thing is that we are even debating the direction of climate change on this globally important continent. And it may not end until we have more weather stations on Antarctica and longer-term data that demonstrate a clear trend.

"IN THE MEANTIME, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE MY NAME FROM THE LIST OF SCIENTISTS WHO DISPUTE GLOBAL WARMING," he said. "I KNOW MY COAUTHORS WOULD AS WELL."

In a related matter, 60 supposedly-independent and objective scientists wrote a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking him to bring the terms of the Kyoto Protocol out into open debate. The so-called experts also informed the Prime Minister that calls for drastic actions on climate are sensationalistic. "Climate changes all the time," they wrote, and insisted that it is currently impossible to distinguish potential human-caused atmospheric changes from natural ones.

Such a letter might otherwise be compelling. But guess what? Many of those lending their signature to this letter also signed their names to an earlier document that is part of the "Anti-Global Warming Petition Project" based out of LaJolla, Calif.

Viewed as a front for the oil, gas, and coal industries, "The Anti-Global Warming Petition Project" has made some eye-opening pronouncements that while they may be trumpeted as fact by U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, they have met with widespread incredulity from hundreds of leading scientists in every nation on Earth. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Inhofe has refused to consider any action on legislation that would address U.S. contribution to greenhouse gases being poured into the atmosphere. Moreover, he is part of a particular line of thinking that portrays concern over climate change as a plot by the rest of the world to hamper the U.S. economy.

To answer your question in a general way - yes - the climate has changed in the past. So what ?

The question is, do rising CO2 levels change the climate. The scientific consensus (as per the IPCC and peer reviewed literature) is that yes, they do.

Or to put it another way - people used to get lung cancer before tobacco smoking became a common past-time. People who don't smoke can get lung cancer today. Do you believe that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer ?

Somewhat ironically, I used to like the HR Nicholls Society and don't object to many of their positions - but their position on global warming is just criminal.

I take nothing on face value Gav, otherwise I would not have forwarded the question. I would simply have accepted the overwhelmingly popular veiw repeated by 99%+ of people, 99% of whom are not climate scientists either. In other words, most people are simply taking what they hear on the subject on face value. I appreciate that you have taken the time to dig up some more info on this, my main focus has been elsewhere. Which means I will have to put that aside so I can go searching for and ploughing through as much climate change literature as possible.

If I come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence that current climate change is largely or entirely man-made, I will cheerfully admit it and come back to the fold on this one.

But right now all I have is: climates have swung wildly many, many times in the past without any help from us - but this time it's different. It's definately us.

If the data had shown a long term history of climatic stability, I would have little doubt that carbon emissions were behind it all. But I still need a bit more convincing yet.

Lefty,

It is possible to reach your own conclusions rapidly by reading the references above. I commend you to do so - and please do let us know how you go.

Gee, I'm very impressed with all the midnight oil that Gav has burned to try and help you out. - My only complaint is that he may have drowned out the info that I sent you about four posts up, about the exact cause of the "natural" cycles, and why we're sure that the current warming is not "natural".. ;-)

I've personally known about the Greenhouse Effect for 33 years, (in fact the first recognition of anthropomorphic warming was back before WW2 by Guy Stewart Callendar) and I've constantly been amazed at the lack of political action about a problem that's been staring us in the face. But there are many people who've put short-term profit before the long-term viability of their own planet - like David Evans.

Thanks for the links Gav and Cretaceous.

Having absorbed that, it does seem a bit more likely to me now that human activity is at least a major influence. Being new to the technicalities underlying this particular debate, simply accepting the assertion that current climate change is largely or entirely man-made would have been taking the most popular veiw at unquestioning face value.

I am cautious about simply accepting veiwpoints these days, even if I like the sound of them. I waited for the inevitable revolution - it never came. I became a permaculturalist and waited for the inevitable collapse of modern society due to the rape and pillage of the "delicate balance" of nature - it never came (yet). Unless we are talking about death and taxes, we need to be very carefull with the use of the word "ineveitable" because a crystal ball we do not have.