State of the Climate Australia

[Michaelangelica]

Climate now: New state of the Climate Snapshot
Reference: 10/28
More extremely hot days, fewer cold ones wetter in the north and drier in the south: this is not a forecast for Australia’s climate but a snapshot of our climate now.
15 March 2010
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology logo.

In a joint CSIRO/Bureau of Meteorology statement released today, Australia’s two lead climate science agencies have produced a snapshot of the state of the climate to update Australians about how their climate has changed and what it means.

Changes observed include:

* Highly variable rainfall across the country, with substantial increases in rainfall in northern and central parts of Australia, as well as significant decreases across much of southern and eastern Australia.
* Rapidly rising sea levels from 1993 to 2009, with levels around Australia rising, between 1.5cm and 3cm per decade in Australia’s south and east and between 7cm and 9cm in the country’s north
* About half of the observed reduction in winter rainfall in south-west Western Australia can be explained by higher greenhouse gas levels.

Bureau of Meteorology Director Dr Greg Ayers said the observed changes showed climate change was real.

“Australia holds one of the best national climate records in the world,” Dr Ayers said.

“The Bureau’s been responsible for keeping that record for more than a hundred years and it’s there for anyone and everyone to see, use and analyse.”

CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark said the Bureau data underpinned a great deal of CSIRO research.

“Understanding options for mitigation and adaptation are important research priorities for us,” Dr Clark said.

“With this snapshot, Australians will be better prepared for the next step of planning for how to adapt to a changing climate and how to also take action to reduce the impacts of climate change. CSIRO has been working with industry and in sectors of the economy such as agriculture to prepare for and implement necessary changes.”

Dr Ayers said the snapshot presented the facts in an accessible format.

“There is a thirst for good quality climate science and our two organisations are proud to publish this,” he said.

The six page snapshot is available here http://www.csiro.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html
or at
www.bom.gov.au [external link].


A set of four climate climate forecast maps.
State of the Climate
Australia’s two lead climate science agencies – the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology - have produced a snapshot of the state of the climate to update Australians about how their climate has changed and what it means.
PDF Download 971 KB
Download Adobe Reader Download Adobe Readerhttp://www.csiro.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html

[Flying Binghy]

....Bureau of Meteorology Director Dr Greg Ayers said the observed changes showed climate change was real.

“Australia holds one of the best national climate records in the world,” Dr Ayers said.

“The Bureau’s been responsible for keeping that record for more than a hundred years and it’s there for anyone and everyone to see, use and analyse.”

CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark said the Bureau data underpinned a great deal of CSIRO research...

YEP, and credibility zero. Nonsence claims made by climate profiteers.

Here's some abreviated comments from several threads in other forums -

A Leading Australian climate scientist claims that the temps in town X are the highest they've been since records began.

An illiterate points out that that temperatures have actually been warmer in town X many years ago, in fact in the news papers of 150 years ago, temps are mentioned that are much hotter then today.

Scientist says official records only go back 100 years and not to believe the news papers. According to the scientist, the thermometres used to record the temps 150 years ago were just hung up on the back veranda under a hot tin roof and are unreliable as there was not a proper scientific method used.

Illiterate (hmmm, when was roofing tin invented) points out that in town X the roofs of 150 years ago were in fact mainly wood shingle and in many cases there was insulation in the ceilings - it is well recorded and found with 30 seconds of googling.

Scientist continues with tin roof and cheap thermometre under tin roof theory.

Illiterate further notes that the thermometers of 150 years ago were not cheap items just randomly hung up on back veranda's.

Scientist sticks to guns with claims that THE official scientificly aproved method of temperature record in town X only goes back 100 years, and no other reliable records are available for town X.

Illiterate reading the official government records of town X discovers that ther was an official full time employed met man and met station 150 years ago and that he regularly posted his readings to the government record and news papers.

Scientist blathers something about checking the records...


Leading Australian climate 'Scientist' Blair Trewin vs 'illiterate' Flying Binghi discusing temp records for Melbourne Australia.... Who's Blair Trewin ? google is your freind...




.

[ecodharmamark]

...Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information...

Source: What is Denialism (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php)

[Flying Binghy]

Oh, ah foregot to add that Tim Flannery were conversent with the early Melbourne temp record tho could'nt be bothered enlightening Trewin.... ;)


Unrelated, tho an interesting article about climate profiteering -

Largely ignored in the local Australian media was an extraordinary story published in London’s Daily Telegraph two weeks ago which accused the Chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, ‘of making a fortune from his links with “carbon trading” companies.’ The Daily Telegraph’s revelations are explosive to say the least....
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/01/the-pachauri-affair





.

[ecodharmamark]

The above is yet another example of textbook denialism. The conspiracy was refuted, so rather than counter-argue, the denialist moved onto another tactic, that of the 'fake expert':

"...A bought-scientist or scientist/expert from an unrelated field to say that their data, lack of data, proven-flawed data or their expert opinion disproves the validity of the entire field."

Source: Hoofnagle & Hoofnagle (2007) What is denialism? (http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html)

The use of the 'false expert' is classic denialist practice and is used widely by the contributors to the Quadrant magazine. Kieth Windschuttle, no less than the editor of the aforementioned magazine, was recently caught out when he used the 'false expert' denialist tactic: How Windschuttle swallowed a hoax to publish a fake story in Quadrant (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/01/06/how-windschuttle-swallowed-a-hoax-to-publish-a-fake-story-in-quadrant/)

[Flying Binghy]

The above is yet another example of textbook denialism. The conspiracy was refuted, so rather than counter-argue, the denialist moved onto another tactic, that of the 'fake expert':

"...A bought-scientist or scientist/expert from an unrelated field to say that their data, lack of data, proven-flawed data or their expert opinion disproves the validity of the entire field."

Source: Hoofnagle & Hoofnagle (2007) What is denialism?

The use of the 'false expert' is classic denialist practice and is used widely by the contributors to the Quadrant magazine. Kieth Windschuttle, no less than the editor of the aforementioned magazine, was recently caught out when he used the 'false expert' denialist tactic: How Windschuttle swallowed a hoax to publish a fake story in Quadrant

Bernie Maddoff would have loved ya ecodharmamark ... ;)

Now, just what we got ? .... Michaelangelica posts a news item, ah references part of the article and note it lacks credibility and i add my reasoning.... ecodharmamark talks conspiracy theorys ... ah adds an article linked via Quadrant, though written by a Pommy paper, which backs up the profiteering angle ..... ecodharmamark goes off on some unrelated tangent ..... Hmmmm... ....your starting to blather ecodharmamark.... :cool:





.

[ecodharmamark]

Bernie Maddoff would have loved ya ecodharmamark ... ;)

Now, just what we got ? .... Michaelangelica posts a news item, ah references part of the article and note it lacks credibility and i add my reasoning.... ecodharmamark talks conspiracy theorys ... ah adds an article linked via Quadrant, though written by a Pommy paper, which backs up the profiteering angle ..... ecodharmamark goes off on some unrelated tangent ..... Hmmmm... ....your starting to blather ecodharmamark...

Denialism (n): the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.

Source: What is denialism? ("http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php)

[Flying Binghy]

the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none

Yep, thats what us worried tax payers keep gettin told - there's to be no debate, we are to put up the money for Al Gores trading scam and shut up.....

... anyway, back to the thread title;

Via Bolt with some bolding by me -

Australian climate scientist Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen tells the British parliamentary inquiry into Climategate just how much global warming science is corrupted by politics and money. Excerpts:

I was peer reviewer for IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)… Since 1998 I have been the editor of the journal, Energy & Environment (E&E) published by Multi-science, where I published my first papers on the IPCC. I interpreted the IPCC “consensus” as politically created in order to support energy technology and scientific agendas that in essence pre-existed the “warming-as -man-made catastrophe alarm."…

3.3 ... In persuading policy makers and the public of this danger, the “hockey stick” became a major tool of persuasion, giving CRU a major role in the policy process at the national, EU and international level. This led to the growing politicisation of science in the interest, allegedly, of protecting the “the environment” and the planet. I observed and documented this phenomenon as the UK Government, European Commission, and World Bank increasingly needed the climate threat to justify their anti-carbon (and pro-nuclear) policies. In return climate science was generously funded and required to support rather than to question these policy objectives… Opponents were gradually starved of research opportunities or persuaded into silence. The apparent “scientific consensus” thus generated became a major tool of public persuasion…

4.1 ... As editor of a journal which remained open to scientists who challenged the orthodoxy, I became the target of a number of CRU manoeuvres. The hacked emails revealed attempts to manipulate peer review to E&E’s disadvantage, and showed that libel threats were considered against its editorial team…

Full article via - http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_government_cash_created_the_climategate_scanda l/

[ecodharmamark]

In the above example of the human-induced climate change denier at work, we can see that the multiple use of denialist tactics have been employed. The denialist refers to an article written by a denialist, about a denialist, for a largely denialist audience. What we have here is merely a three ring denialist circus.

Denialists are masters at the practice of using false experts (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/fake_experts.php) and cherry picking (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/selectivity_cherry_picking_1.php).

Boehmer-Christiansen is not a climate scientist undertaking any empirical research. Rather, she is a merely a self-confessed '...researcher of the politics and science of climate change'. She is a false expert of the highest order. Even to point of publishing her own journal, which is a clear example of a conflict of interest: '...negative attitudes to my often sceptical journal have harmed it. Its impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it, and even sales may have been affected.'

Bolt is a cherry picker of the highest order. The selective re-use of quotations from Boehmer-Christiansen's complete submission to a UK parliamentary inquiry is evidence of this.

The complete Boehmer-Christiansen submission, sans 'picked cherries', can be found here: Memorandum submitted by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (CRU 26) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2602.htm)

Call it what you like, but sour grapes taste just like sour cherries...

[Flying Binghy]

In the above example of the human-induced climate change denier at work, we can see that the multiple use of denialist tactics have been employed. The denialist refers to an article written by a denialist, about a denialist, for a largely denialist audience. What we have here is merely a three ring denialist circus.

Denialists are masters at the practice of using false experts and cherry picking.

Boehmer-Christiansen is not a climate scientist undertaking any empirical research. Rather, she is a merely a self-confessed '...researcher of the politics and science of climate change'. She is a false expert of the highest order. Even to point of publishing her own journal, which is a clear example of a conflict of interest: '...negative attitudes to my often sceptical journal have harmed it. Its impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it, and even sales may have been affected.'

Bolt is a cherry picker of the highest order. The selective re-use of quotations from Boehmer-Christiansen's complete submission to a UK parliamentary inquiry is evidence of this.

The complete Boehmer-Christiansen submission, sans 'picked cherries', can be found here: Memorandum submitted by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (CRU 26)

Call it what you like, but sour grapes taste just like sour cherries...


Hmmm... ;) ...in post two above, ah covered an event that had happened to me personaly over at WXzone forums. A well known Oz climate scientist had "cherry picked" data to suit his own ends, i.e. the Melbourne temp record. This fellow me (and others) pointed out that his data were incompleate and a look at the fuller record indicated recent temps in Melbourne were not the hottest they ever been, they been hotter over a hundred year ago. He tried to dismis the old data though all he did were show himself up as making claims on a subject he knew little about, and him the so-called unchallangable expert.

Today JoNova has an interesting commentry on "cherry picking" by the BOM and CSIRO -

(extract)
...Did the BOM forget they have hundreds of data points from back then? Did they forget to use their own Website, where you can pick-a-trend, any-trend, and choose the one with err…more convenient results? Or is it the case that their collective mission is not necessarily to provide Australians with the most complete and appropriate information available, but with what the bureaucracy needs them to know? And what they need to know, apparently, is the carefully censored version of the truth that will keep government ministers happy ...

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/







.

[ecodharmamark]

Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness...

For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon...

...it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are...

Source: Diethelm, P. & McKee, M. (2009) Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond. European Journal of Public health. Volume 19, Issue 1, pp. 3 & 4.

[Flying Binghy]

Australia's CSIRO gives Al Gores An Inconvieniant Truth the thumbs up -

Dr Penny Whetton, CSIRO's Climate Change Impact and Risk group leader

"I was really quite moved, and given that this film was about a topic I deal with every day, this says something about how powerfully it communicates its message. Its scientific basis is very sound." 4.75 out of 5

Dr Michael Coughlan, head of the National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology

The science was generally solid, if simplistically treated. It was a bit long, but it was well produced and it kept my attention. 4

Dr Kevin Hennessy, principal research scientist, CSIRO Climate Impacts and Risk group

"The only minor quibble I had was that Gore implies that most of the climate trends and recent extreme events are due to human activities. It's not quite that simple … But easily the best documentary about global warming I've seen." 4.5

Dr Graeme Pearman, former CSIRO Director of Atmospheric Research turned consultant

"By and large, I didn't feel that the presentation overstated what we can say based on current scientific knowledge … it is not a doomsaying exercise because it is positive about what can be done." 4

Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis, National Climate Centre

"There were a number of simplifications but at no time did I feel that he was moving outside the climate science knowledge envelope." 4.9

Dr Barrie Pittock, former CSIRO Climate Impact group leader

"It is technically brilliant, remarkably accurate and up to date, and should be palatable to a wide audience. 5

Dr Kathy McInnes, senior research scientist, CSIRO Climate Impacts and Risk group

"There were bits and pieces that were glossed over … But I was surprised by how accurate the science was overall." 4.5


More of this old article here - http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/an-inconvenient-truth-or-gores-opportunism-you-decide/2006/09/08/1157222329040.html?page=2





.

[kerrip]

Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness...

For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon...

...it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are...

Source: Diethelm, P. & McKee, M. (2009) Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond. European Journal of Public health. Volume 19, Issue 1, pp. 3 & 4.

On reading this I was wondering if Christopher Columbus was considered a denialist? Wasn't he the one who, even though the consensus of the day said that the world was flat, he thought that it was round and went off to find out?

[ecodharmamark]

G'day kerrip

Columbus was skeptical of the unscientific and unresonable assertion that the earth was flat, and set out to prove his position. Of course, the rest is history.

Denialists refute scientific consensus, or theories which have already been tested and found to be accurate, as in the case of human-induced climate change where the degree of certainty is greater than 90%. See, for example: State of the Climate (http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf).

Skeptics are not denialists, and indeed go to great pains to distance themselves from the latter: Australian Skeptics’ position on “climate change sceptics” (http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/announcements/australian-skeptics-position-on-climate-change-sceptics/)

Hooroo, Marko.

[Flying Binghy]

G'day kerrip

Columbus was skeptical of the unscientific and unresonable assertion that the earth was flat, and set out to prove his position. Of course, the rest is history.

Denialists refute scientific consensus, or theories which have already been tested and found to be accurate, as in the case of human-induced climate change where the degree of certainty is greater than 90%. See, for example: State of the Climate.

Skeptics are not denialists, and indeed go to great pains to distance themselves from the latter: Australian Skeptics’ position on “climate change sceptics”

Hooroo, Marko.

Now thats funny ...:D , are ya saying that you can only be a sceptic if you are a member of the sceptics club ? ......:D :D :D


Only genuine sceptics to judge climate science... :D


.

[kerrip]

I think you are getting into semantics Mark.

[ecodharmamark]

I don't know what you mean, Kerri.

[Flying Binghy]

"...the rediculous empty posturing of overpaid sanctimonious boofheads"


....:D

Thanks to markybondi for those apt words .... more commentary on the fuzzy "state of the climate" via - http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_vice_chancellor_could_just_not_fly_to_canberra _instead/




.

[RichardM]

On reading this I was wondering if Christopher Columbus was considered a denialist? Wasn't he the one who, even though the consensus of the day said that the world was flat, he thought that it was round and went off to find out?

No, he went to the King of Spain for funding of a great money-making idea that you could reach "The Indies" (ie India & SE Asia) by sailing west, thereby beating the stranglehold of the Dutch on the spice trade, which back then was viewed with an importance not much less than the present day oil-trade. Unfortunately they found Cuba & South America and had to make do with gold, tobacco, syphilis (or so some say) & potatoes instead.

[ecodharmamark]

No, he went to the King of Spain for funding of a great money-making idea that you could reach "The Indies" (ie India & SE Asia) by sailing west, thereby beating the stranglehold of the Dutch on the spice trade, which back then was viewed with an importance not much less than the present day oil-trade. Unfortunately they found Cuba & South America and had to make do with gold, tobacco, syphilis (or so some say) & potatoes instead.

Quite true. I wasn't even going to try and explain that in post written in response to a preceding post that queried the difference between denialism, and skepticism. But since you have raised the subject again, Richard, there is some evidence to suggest that knowledge of a spherical Earth existed well before old Columbus set off. One bloke has even wrote what appears to be a half-decent book on the subject: Inventing the Flat Earth (http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/B5904.aspx).

Writing of a flat Earth: It seems that the resurgence in denialism has spurned a new interest in this old clanger: The Flat Earth Society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/).

I'm not sure whether there are still people who believe that the earth is flat, or whether it is just trendy these days to wear a t-shirt proclaiming this belief. However, it does make one wonder how long it will be (if ever) before people stop denying that human-induced climate change is a reality.

Yours on a (roughly) spherical Earth, Marko.

[Michaelangelica]

YEP, and credibility zero. Nonsence claims made by climate profiteers.

Here's some abreviated comments from several threads in other forums -

A Leading Australian climate scientist claims that the temps in town X are the highest they've been since records began.

An illiterate points out that that temperatures have actually been warmer in town X many years ago, in fact in the news papers of 150 years ago, temps are mentioned that are much hotter then today.

Scientist says official records only go back 100 years and not to believe the news papers. According to the scientist, the thermometres used to record the temps 150 years ago were just hung up on the back veranda under a hot tin roof and are unreliable as there was not a proper scientific method used.

Illiterate (hmmm, when was roofing tin invented) points out that in town X the roofs of 150 years ago were in fact mainly wood shingle and in many cases there was insulation in the ceilings - it is well recorded and found with 30 seconds of googling.

Scientist continues with tin roof and cheap thermometre under tin roof theory.

Illiterate further notes that the thermometers of 150 years ago were not cheap items just randomly hung up on back veranda's.

Scientist sticks to guns with claims that THE official scientificly aproved method of temperature record in town X only goes back 100 years, and no other reliable records are available for town X.

Illiterate reading the official government records of town X discovers that ther was an official full time employed met man and met station 150 years ago and that he regularly posted his readings to the government record and news papers.

Scientist blathers something about checking the records...


Leading Australian climate 'Scientist' Blair Trewin vs 'illiterate' Flying Binghi discusing temp records for Melbourne Australia.... Who's Blair Trewin ? google is your freind...




.

Did you read the report FB?
Most data is from the 1960s-1970s.?

At this stage even if you had absolute proof your ego would not let you accept the scientists' warning.

And the CSIRO is about a good a bunch of scientists as you get in Australia

[Flying Binghy]

At this stage even if you had absolute proof your ego would not let you accept the scientists' warning.



Michaelangelica... many scientists are warning that we have a problem in the climate science itself. What we have is BILLIONS of dollars being spent to find a predetermined answer - the scientist will find an answer to support the carbon trading scam or there will be NO FUNDING, i.e., NO JOB....

"...another significant aspect of the affair - the attempt by a number of scientists - who are known to be both alarmist and influential in advising on climate science policy - to stifle the results of a research paper that disagrees with their belief.

Those attempting this censorship include some with strong links to the IPCC, for example Phil Jones of the CRU and Michael Mann of hockey-stick notoriety, and remember that it is on the IPCC’s advice that the Rudd government relies in setting Australia’s national global warming policy. As the British press highlighted during January and February this year, it is a story of no small substance when corrupt, inaccurate or deliberately misleading advice emanates from the official United Nations advisory body on climate science or from scientists who are associated with it. Remember, too, that according to CEO Megan Clark no fewer than 40 CSIRO scientists have associations with the IPCC.

Few stories in science come bigger than deliberate censorship..."

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/bob-carter-john-mclean




...And the CSIRO is about a good a bunch of scientists as you get in Australia

Agreed, most are. Though we do have a few miss-guided ones around...

[Grahame]

I postulate that modern science is a little misguided in and of itself. I think we have become far too reliant on it to the detriments of our minds and lives.

It seems to me that many of the problems science is being employed to overcome are the result of science in the first place.

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy

[permasculptor]

how many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

[ecodharmamark]

G'day fellow cosmonauts of the good ship Planet Earth

What is science? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:

The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute.

What is permaculture? Holmgren (http://www.holmgren.com.au/html/About/aboutpermaculture.html) defines it as:

Consciously designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and relationships found in nature, while yielding an abundance of food, fibre and energy for provision of local needs. People, their buildings and the ways in which they organise themselves are central to permaculture.

I don't believe you can have the latter without the former. For me, "Consciously designed" means that we have to at least be conscious, as I don't know of anyone who can unconsciously design anything. Further for me, to be conscious means to be aware; to have "knowledge". By its own definition then, permaculture must incorporate science; and all permaculturalists are scientists.

Of course, permaculture is much more than just pure science (on its own, still an amazing thing), it is applied science. And with applied science comes imagination, and through imagination comes art, and with art comes bullshit, hence the term: bullshit artist. So, when a bullshit artist enters our little forum here with the intention of not making us laugh by pointing out how silly we all are in the broader scheme of things, but rather with the intention of furthering the corporate, Earth-defiling tactic of denying the pure sciences that support permaculture, I no longer attempt to debate with that kind of individual. Rather, I merely use knowledge to expose them for what they are.

In light of the above, you will note that with very few exceptions I have not attempted to use knowledge to expose the myriad of 'bullshit artists' that grace our spaceship. There is a very good reason for this. Most bullshit artists are genuinely good and kind people, and serve a purpose which is far greater than pure science alone. Mandala Town would be a boring place without a few 'jesters' and a couple of 'village idiots'. They make us laugh, cry, think, dream, etc. Bullshitting for the good of the community is a great thing. However, when the bullshit defiles good science for the benefit of very few at the expense of many, then it's time to act.

Thanks for reading my bullshit, Marko.

[Flying Binghy]

G'day fellow cosmonauts of the good ship Planet Earth

What is science? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:

The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute.

What is permaculture? Holmgren defines it as:

Consciously designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and relationships found in nature, while yielding an abundance of food, fibre and energy for provision of local needs. People, their buildings and the ways in which they organise themselves are central to permaculture.

I don't believe you can have the latter without the former. For me, "Consciously designed" means that we have to at least be conscious, as I don't know of anyone who can unconsciously design anything. Further for me, to be conscious means to be aware; to have "knowledge". By its own definition then, permaculture must incorporate science; and all permaculturalists are scientists.

Of course, permaculture is much more than just pure science (on its own, still an amazing thing), it is applied science. And with applied science comes imagination, and through imagination comes art, and with art comes bullshit, hence the term: bullshit artist. So, when a bullshit artist enters our little forum here with the intention of not making us laugh by pointing out how silly we all are in the broader scheme of things, but rather with the intention of furthering the corporate, Earth-defiling tactic of denying the pure sciences that support permaculture, I no longer attempt to debate with that kind of individual. Rather, I merely use knowledge to expose them for what they are.

In light of the above, you will note that with very few exceptions I have not attempted to use knowledge to expose the myriad of 'bullshit artists' that grace our spaceship. There is a very good reason for this. Most bullshit artists are genuinely good and kind people, and serve a purpose which is far greater than pure science alone. Mandala Town would be a boring place without a few 'jesters' and a couple of 'village idiots'. They make us laugh, cry, think, dream, etc. Bullshitting for the good of the community is a great thing. However, when the bullshit defiles good science for the benefit of very few at the expense of many, then it's time to act.

Thanks for reading my bullshit, Marko.


LOL, Looks like ecodharmamark has been romancing a good bottle of red... :) ..."benefit of the few", perhaps he just discovered the reality of the Al Gore scam...

....back to the thread - State of Oz climate -

The Climategate emails confirmed much of what the sceptics had been saying for years.

They confirmed that the peer review process had been corrupted, that scientists were arranging friendly reviews.

They confirmed that the science journals had been corrupted.

That journals that refused to play ball with the doomsayers faced boycotts and their editors faced firing.

They confirmed that sceptical scientists were being systematically excluded from the top‐tier journals.
The Climategate emails confirmed that journalists were likewise threatened with boycotts if they didn’t play ball.

The Climategate emails confirmed that the science itself was suspect. That the doomsayers themselves couldn’t make the data work. That they were debating among themselves some of the same points that the sceptics raised, and were privately acknowledging that they didn’t have answers to the issues that the sceptics raised.

The Climategate emails confirmed that the doomsayers were so determined to hide their data from inquiring minds that they were prepared to break the law to hide it – and did break the law – by avoiding Freedom of Information requests.

The Climategate emails confirmed that raw temperature data collected from countries around the world was destroyed. It appears the UK is missing raw temperature data going back to 1850.

The scientists at the heart of the Climategate emails aren’t fringe players on some periphery. They operate what’s known as the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. This is the group that collects temperature data, messages it, and then feeds it to the UN and others. This is the data that we have been relying on to tell us if the globe has been warming or not. This same data is then used by virtually everyone in the climate science field who is concerned with historical temperatures....


cont. - http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/put...n-perspective/





.

[ecodharmamark]

Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html

What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html

The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html

[Kardella]

Let me get this straight FB. Are you saying that there is this giant cabal of scientists (many thousands at last count) who have contrived to develop a conspiracy of man made global warming so that they can get their grubby hands on some research funds? Give me a break!

The scientific community that we are referring to here comprises climatoligists, glaciologists, botanists, oceanographers, zoologists, paleontologists, etc., etc. These are people who have devoted their lives to exploring the natural world using rigorous scientific method. In the vast majority of cases, they are not reliant on funds relating to proving or disproving global warming. It is the data that they gather in the pursuit of their science that leads them to conclusion that there will be serious consequences if we continue to pollute the atmosphere as we are currently doing.

I would also like to point out that in contrast to the transparent allocation of funds to research, the money used to support the 'think tanks' and the climate change denialists groups is anything but clean.

Finally, on a positive note, as a practising permaculturalist I am pleased that you are doing your bit to off-set global warming through carbon capture and storage. Whilst CCS is probably unlikely to be a successful strategy for coal fired power stations, it is demonstrably successful in Permaculture and it would be wonderful to see this approach adopted more widely within the agricultural industry.

[Flying Binghy]

via ecodharmamark
Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clim...ils-hacked.htm

What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...s-tell-us.html

What happened to the evidence for man-made global warming?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...l-warming.html

The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-ch...denialism.html

...Oh, dear... :D

...Lovelock, who 40 years ago originated the idea that the planet is a giant, self-regulating organism – the so-called Gaia theory – added that he has little sympathy for the climate scientists caught up in the UEA email scandal. He said he had not read the original emails – "I felt reluctant to pry" – but that their reported content had left him feeling "utterly disgusted".

"Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science," he said. "I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do. You've got to have standards."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change


...Its late, so nuff for now.


.

[ecodharmamark]

...Oh, dear... :D

...Lovelock, who 40 years ago originated the idea that the planet is a giant, self-regulating organism – the so-called Gaia theory – added that he has little sympathy for the climate scientists caught up in the UEA email scandal. He said he had not read the original emails – "I felt reluctant to pry" – but that their reported content had left him feeling "utterly disgusted".

"Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science," he said. "I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do. You've got to have standards."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change


...Its late, so nuff for now.


.

Oh dear, indeed...

Seems like Lovelock is not the only one who does not read (my emphasis):

The most quoted email is from Phil Jones in 1999 discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

Source: What do the hacked CRU emails tell us? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html)

Must be cherry-picking season?

Marko

[Flying Binghy]

LOL, i think your fairly new to this subject eh, ecodharmamark... :)






.

[ecodharmamark]

LOL, i think your fairly new to this subject eh, ecodharmamark... :)

Learning about the subject of denialism has indeed been a relatively new experience. However, I now understand the phenomenon to a much greater degree. Thanks largely to your input, 'Flying Binghy', multiple examples from all of the following characteristics of climate science denialism have been collected and are now in the process of being studied:

1. Conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories have been growing in strength in recent months as personal attacks on climate scientists have intensified. In particular, there has been accusations of manipulation of temperature data with the result that "the surface temperature record is unreliable" has been the most popular argument over the last month. This is distracting people from the physical realities of global warming manifesting themselves all over the world. Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. Spring is coming earlier each year. Animal breeding and migration are changing in response. Distribution of plants are shifting to higher elevations. Global sea level is rising. When one steps back to take in the full body of evidence, it overwhelmingly points to global warming.

2. Fake experts

A number of surveys and petitions have been published online, presenting lengthy numbers of scientists who reject man-made global warming. Close inspection of these lists show very few qualifications in climate science. On the contrary, a survey of climate scientists who actively publish climate research found that over 97% agree that human activity is significantly changing global temperature.

3. Cherry picking

This usually involves a focus on a single paper to the neglect of the rest of peer-review research. A recent example is the Lindzen-Choi paper that finds low climate sensitivity (around 0.5°C for doubled CO2). This neglects all the research using independent techniques studying different time periods that find our climate has high sensitivity (around 3°C for doubled CO2). This includes research using a similar approach to Lindzen-Choi but with more global coverage.

4. Impossible expectations

The uncertainties of climate models are often used as an excuse to reject any understanding that can come from climate models. Or worse, the uncertainty of climate models are used to reject all evidence of man-made global warming. This neglects the fact that there are multiple lines of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming .

5. Logical fallacies

Strawmen arguments abound in the climate debate. Often have I heard skeptics argue "CO2 is not the only driver of climate" which every climate scientist in the world would wholeheartedly agree with. A consideration of all the evidence tells us there are a number of factors that drive climate but currently, CO2 is the dominant forcing and also the fastest rising. Logical fallacies such as "climate has changed before therefore current climate change must be natural" are the equivalent of arguing that lightning has started bushfires in the past, therefore no modern bushfire is ever started by arsonists.[/B]

Source: Cook, J. (2010) The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism (http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html)

I will leave you now with a final word from John Cook:

Why is it important to define the tactics of denialism? Good faith discussion requires consideration of the full body of scientific evidence. This is difficult when confronted with rhetorical techniques which are designed to distort and distract. Identifying and publicly exposing these tactics are the first step in redirecting discussion back to a focus on the science.

This is not to say all global warming skeptic arguments employ denialist tactics. And it's certainly not advocating attacking peoples' motives. On the contrary, in most cases, focus on motives rather than methods is counterproductive.

Once again, thank you.

Marko

[Flying Binghy]

via ecodharmamark

Learning about the subject of denialism has indeed been a relatively new experience. However, I now understand the phenomenon to a much greater degree. Thanks largely to your input, 'Flying Binghy', multiple examples from all of the following characteristics of climate science denialism have been collected and are now in the process of being studied:


....I will leave you now with a final word from John Cook:

Why is it important to define the tactics of denialism? Good faith discussion requires consideration of the full body of scientific evidence. This is difficult when confronted with rhetorical techniques which are designed to distort and distract. Identifying and publicly exposing these tactics are the first step in redirecting discussion back to a focus on the science.

This is not to say all global warming skeptic arguments employ denialist tactics. And it's certainly not advocating attacking peoples' motives. On the contrary, in most cases, focus on motives rather than methods is counterproductive.

Once again, thank you.



Hmmm,... i've always found it difficult to discuss anything with religeous fundamentalists. When i piont out the obvious fallacy of their belief that they are trying to impose upon me they turn to the personal attacks.

....oh well, on ah plods...:cool:





.

[Flying Binghy]

Back to the thread...

An interesting observation -

Peter Costello is amazed that climate alarmism can be switched off and on at will:
Last year, we were told, the most important issue for the country - for the planet - was greenhouse gas emissions. This meant the Senate had to pass the government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme.
It was so urgent it had to be legislated before the end of the year, and before the summit in Copenhagen… Kevin Rudd declared climate change ‘’the great moral and economic challenge of our time’’.
Now the legislation has become less important.... http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/where_did_the_climate_crisis_go/





.

[Michaelangelica]

I think people are tired of banging their heads against a denialist brick wall.
You can only put up with so much pain/stupidity.

What does it cost you to think that mitigating CO2 emissions might be a good idea?

[Flying Binghy]

Hmmm, just for starters - the Climategate corruption doesnt worry you Michaelangelica ?





.

[Flying Binghy]

Nice wage if ya can get it...

"...THE Rudd Government has transferred its entire emissions trading team into the strife-prone household insulation program, putting plans for carbon trading this year on the backburner.
The team of 154, which has been costing taxpayers an average of $370,000 each planning for the non-existent emissions trading scheme, will be put to work on sorting out the problems with the $2.45 billion home insulation program that left four people dead and has been implicated in 120 house fires up to March 24..." cont. -
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/carbon-trading-on-backburner/story-e6freon6-1225849223899






.

[Kardella]

Dear Flying Binghi,

You clearly have a significant concern about the reality of human induced global warming. What evidence would convince you that global is occurring and that it is very likely to be caused by humans burning fossil fuels?

Regards,

Kardella

[Flying Binghy]

You clearly have a significant concern about the reality of human induced global warming...

Kardella, from the research and forum debates i have been involved in over the last couple of years, ah have nil concerns about AGW. I do have concerns about the economic damage that will be done in the miss-guided attempts to stop a fairy tale.




What evidence would convince you that global (warming) is occurring and that it is very likely to be caused by humans burning fossil fuels?


Evidence... show me some. Even this dumb hill farmer me with less then eight years of school has been able to debunk some of the so-called AGW 'evidence' ..., so, show me some 'evidence' of AGW...






.

[Kardella]

Hi Flying Binghy

You have 'answered' my question with another question........ which is clearly not an answer.

I'll repeat the question: What evidence would you need to convince you that global warming is occurring and is very likely caused by humans burning fossil fuels? If you are unable (or unwilling) to answer that question, there can be no dialogue because you could conceivably NEVER be convinced.

Kind regards,

Kardella

[Flying Binghy]

You have 'answered' my question with another question........ which is clearly not an answer.

I'll repeat the question: What evidence would you need to convince you that global warming is occurring and is very likely caused by humans burning fossil fuels? If you are unable (or unwilling) to answer that question, there can be no dialogue because you could conceivably NEVER be convinced.

Here's me thinking it were a request, not a question....anyway, i'll put it slightly differently;

In the last couple of years i have seen much evidence presented as 'proof' of AGW. From what i've seen, none of this so-called proof has stood up to close scrutiny. Therefore, i have no evidence/proof to convince me of AGW. So, my request is that i be shown some proof of AGW... that is the "evidence" i will need to be convinced of AGW.....

... is that better Kardella ? ... :)




.

[ecodharmamark]

Here's me thinking it were a request, not a question....anyway, i'll put it slightly differently;

In the last couple of years i have seen much evidence presented as 'proof' of AGW. From what i've seen, none of this so-called proof has stood up to close scrutiny. Therefore, i have no evidence/proof to convince me of AGW. So, my request is that i be shown some proof of AGW... that is the "evidence" i will need to be convinced of AGW.....

... is that better Kardella ? ... :)

Dear Kardella

Beautiful area where you are situated.

Looking forward to getting back there some time for a visit.

Keep up the great work, Marko.

[Kardella]

Here's me thinking it were a request, not a question....anyway, i'll put it slightly differently;

In the last couple of years i have seen much evidence presented as 'proof' of AGW. From what i've seen, none of this so-called proof has stood up to close scrutiny. Therefore, i have no evidence/proof to convince me of AGW. So, my request is that i be shown some proof of AGW... that is the "evidence" i will need to be convinced of AGW.....



... is that better Kardella ? ... :)




.

Unfortunately not Flying Binghy. Your 'request' is really another question . I'll put it another way .....From the vast quantity of empirical research undertaken and data collected across a diverse range of disciplines, what additional information do you need to convince you of human induced global warming? If I was to ask you for ONE thing that would satisfy you that humans were responsible for global warming, what would that be?

I live in hope.

Regards,

Kardella

[Kardella]

Dear Kardella

Beautiful area where you are situated.

Looking forward to getting back there some time for a visit.

Keep up the great work, Marko.

Hi Marko,

Yes, it's lovely country and we're looking forward to immersing ourselves in the local community.

Thanks for your comments - I always enjoy reading your posts.

Regards,

Kardella

[9anda1f]

I've no firm opinion on AGW one way or the other ... there's too many contradictory opinions flying around out there and I haven't taken time to sift through it all. But I do read any well reasoned articles I can find and stumbled across this one: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html For your reading enjoyment!


Politicians and scientists still cling to the same hypothesis: Increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival. The reality of our global temperatures, the failure of these catastrophic predictions to materialize, and the IPCC scandals all continue to cast serious doubt on that hypothesis.


Three peer-reviewed journal contain data contradicting the AGW hypothesis. But before the journal papers are reviewed, here is a little background on the science.


So what type of experiment could be performed to test this AGW hypothesis? If there were satellites in orbit monitoring the emission of OLR over time at the same location, then OLR could be measured in a very controlled manner. If, over time, the emission of OLR in the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs decreases over time, then that would prove the AGW hypothesis (i.e., that OLR is being absorbed by CO2 and heating the planet instead of being emitted from the atmosphere). But what if, over time (say, over thirty years), the emissions of OLR wavelengths that CO2 absorb remained constant? That would disprove the hypothesis and put the AGW argument to bed.

As luck would have it, that experiment has actually been performed! Three journal papers report the data from three monitoring satellites that have measured the OLR of 1997 and 2006 and compared those measurements to 1970, and they are located here, here, and here.

[Flying Binghy]

In the last couple of years i have seen much evidence presented as 'proof' of AGW. From what i've seen, none of this so-called proof has stood up to close scrutiny. Therefore, i have no evidence/proof to convince me of AGW. So, my request is that i be shown some proof of AGW... that is the "evidence" i will need to be convinced of AGW.....


Unfortunately not Flying Binghy. Your 'request' is really another question . I'll put it another way .....From the vast quantity of empirical research undertaken and data collected across a diverse range of disciplines, what additional information do you need to convince you of human induced global warming? If I was to ask you for ONE thing that would satisfy you that humans were responsible for global warming, what would that be?


Kardella, my request is a request for some proof/evidence. If you think you've got some, please do show us. If i see some genuine proof then i will change my mind. I'm yet to see any.... :)





.

[Flying Binghy]

Want to find out your towns UHI effect - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/04/measure-uhi-in-your-town-with-this-easy-to-use-temperature-datalogger-kit/#more-18158




.

[ecodharmamark]

I've no firm opinion on AGW one way or the other ... there's too many contradictory opinions flying around out there and I haven't taken time to sift through it all. But I do read any well reasoned articles I can find and stumbled across this one: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html For your reading enjoyment!

G'day Bill

Thanks for the link. At the risk of starting a 'ping-pong' match, I offer you the following as a response:

Monday, 22 February, 2010

Have American Thinker disproven global warming?

American Thinker have published an article The AGW Smoking Gun by Gary Thompson who claims to disprove a key component of anthropogenic global warming. The article begins by stating "...it seems that the only way to disprove the AGW hypothesis is to address problems with the science". This is a fair statement and a return to an emphasis on science in the climate debate is most welcome. So have American Thinker discovered a flaw in climate science that has escaped the attention of the world's climate scientists? Let's examine Thompson's article to find out...

...So what do we learn from the American Thinker article. Thompson cites peer-reviewed papers but his analysis consists of eyeballing graphs while spurning the peer-reviewed data analysis. This approach leads to the opposite conclusion of the papers' authors. I first encountered Harries 2001 when documenting the empirical evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect. After reading the paper, I had many questions. Rather than let the gaps in my understanding lead me to think I knew more than the authors, I emailed my questions to the lead author John Harries, an approachable scientist who was forthcoming with prompt and detailed replies. The American Thinker article does not disprove the enhanced greenhouse effect. It does however provide further evidence for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Posted by John Cook at 17:28 PM

Source: Cook, J. (2010) Have American Thinker disproven global warming? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/American-Thinker-claims-to-have-disproven-global-warming.html) Skeptical Science

The Harries (2001) article actually found evidence to the contrary of the American Thinker piece by Thompson, and this clearly shows us that we should always be very careful about checking original sources prior to drawing conclusions from reading non peer-reviewed literature:

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Source: Harries et al (2001) Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html) Nature 410, 355-35 (my emphasis in bold)

Cheerio, Marko.

[9anda1f]

Ha! No ping-pong from me! Mr Cook makes some valid points, and the original "American Thinker" article smacks of cherry picking the data when I think about it some more. I retract my "well reasoned articles" statement when referring to Thompson's little spot. ; )

My deep down gut feeling is that AGW is rather obvious when taken at the macroscopic level. Makes me think of yeast overflowing a Petri dish ...

Thanks Mark. Good catch!

[Kardella]

Many thanks for your response Flying Binghi, although I fear we are no further down the track. Accordingly, I think I will end my posts on this matter at this point and focus on other parts of the Forum.

As a closing comment, I would strongly recommend that you go back to source documents rather than the websites that you regularly reference. You will find that there is a small number of journal articles that question AGW although the vast majority are pointing to the burning of fossil fuels as the likely cause of global warming and the just as insidious acidification of the seas. The dialogue (and disagreement) that you find at this level is very healthy and entirely consistent with the scientific method and good debate. Don't be lured by the porn sites relating to this critical issue.

All the best,

Kardella

[Flying Binghy]

As a closing comment, I would strongly recommend that you go back to source documents rather than the websites that you regularly reference. You will find that there is a small number of journal articles that question AGW although the vast majority are pointing to the burning of fossil fuels as the likely cause of global warming and the just as insidious acidification of the seas. The dialogue (and disagreement) that you find at this level is very healthy and entirely consistent with the scientific method and good debate. Don't be lured by the porn sites relating to this critical issue.

Nice abusive post Kardella. Wheres this proof of the acidic ocean eh... :)



Many thanks for your response Flying Binghi, although I fear we are no further down the track. Accordingly, I think I will end my posts on this matter at this point and focus on other parts of the Forum.

So, no evidence eh Kardella....

Hmmm, as usual the silly question followed by no evidence followed by the parting abusive post routine... the usual stuff i have got over the years.

Perhaps Kardella should have first done a google of "Flying Binghi", "Flying Binghy" and "Flying Binghi(2) before starting. Then Kardella would have known that ah have been debating the so-called science of AGW for a while now... :)





.

[Kardella]

Dear Flying Binghy,

My apologies if you regard the post as abusive. It was not intended to be so, certainly not to you. I guess I am showing my frustration with the procrastination on this matter - and I accept that you don't share my view on this. We'll have to agree to disagree.

My apologies once again.

Kind regards,

Kardella

[Flying Binghy]

...and I accept that you don't share my view on this. We'll have to agree to disagree.


No problemo Kardella... :)





.