Tuesday 25th of June 2024

climate change...

climate change


Not so strangely it is hard to convince people that powerful climate change is on the way... It is also hard to keep the thought momentum of the possibility. It is also hard to convince people that something has to be done — and can be done — about it... It's near impossible to find the irrefutable argument to demonstrate that as climate change may be happening (or may not), global warming could suddenly accelerate and hit us for six, as we do nothing — or still hit us hard even should we be doing something.

Thus how can we be certain that climate is changing? The climate-change-deniers will have us — the climate change adherents — treated like as if we were flat-earth theorists in the same way as we shame them of flat earth heresy... fun fun.. tragic fun.

Thus the question remains, is climate changing?
After a near November record scorcher in New South Wales and a record spell in South Australia, after record rainfall in Cumbria, UK, after 4 typhoons dumping record rains in the Philippines, and many other indices, can we claim that climate is changing?

Can we claim that because the ice in the Arctic region is thinning out to the point that we now suppose no more ice cover in that region during a few summer days within 20 years?
Since some of the ice sheet in Antarctica is disappearing can we claim that the climate is warming?...

Are these trends going to sustain the warming or are they part of normal fluctuation within the climatic process — selected fluctuations taken as proof by the deniers that the trend is presently "reversing"...

As I have said before, we cannot define global warming by pointing a finger in the air. Our physical adaptation to relative temperature changes and our flimsy animalistic senses can only tell us whether it's cold, cool, warm or hot. Our perceptions cannot tell us of the subtle and not-so-subtle variations out of the "ordinary" because there has been days "like these before" when we felt hotter and days when we felt colder than usual. Thus we have to rely on scientific expertise to evaluate changes in climatic conditions — short terms and long terms.

First we have to accept that the earth has had climatic variations before. We would be foolish to postulate that the climate never ever changed. Here we thus establish that climate CAN change and does change.

About 12,000 years ago, climatic conditions took a turn for the warming. In geological-fart terms, this is very very recent. The massive change from an ice age to warmer climes only happened 600 human generations ago (20 years per generation). Some of our ancestors recorded the change. Some of these records may have been "legenged" such as in "the biblical floods" that were verbally conveyed between generations... or the changes have been recorded at the time such as in drawings made under the overhangs of Arnhem Land, Northern Australia... There, new species of saltwater fish appeared at that time and were "recorded". Till then, only freshwater species were drawn. Dating and interpretations of such works can be the source of controversy but dating technique through isotopic decay has greatly improved our knowledge of such changes and the timing of such changes —and drawings. Some serious studies of the big melt suggest that during a particular time in this massive change of weather, sea levels were rising by more than 3 feet per year. Massive rise. No scientist who respects his/her profession would deny these changes.

So can we expect similar changes to happen again, continue or are we regressing back into an Ice-Age? And should a warming change be happening, what would be the origin of the change?

Although some people disagree, observations around the globe show that the aggregate trend of maximum and minimum temperatures is going up. Observations also show an increase in extreme climatic events. Sure one can say there has not been a Katrina this year, in the Gulf of Mexico, but, in other regions of the globe, there has been a noticeable increase of weather extremes. Glaciers are retreating fast, even faster than anticipated by global warming computer models. There are more floods and droughts "of the century" than ever before.

And one has no choice but to recognise that, as glaciers are melting, they are actually retarding the process of warming. It's the ice cube in the whisky syndrome (see toon above). The drink is getting cooler but the sum total temperature of the drink and ice combined is going up, till the ice melts away and the drink goes to room temperature...

What is the room temperature of the earth?

The Earth is a bloody lucky planet...

100 kms to the "edge of space", 15 kms of relative thickness, 8,000 metres of thickness able to support life (generous number — likely to be 6500 metres) — the earth's very thin atmosphere acts like a greenhouse. It protects the surface from the extremes of spacial temperatures which would be above 200C during the day and close to minus 100C during the night... Thus this very thin atmospheric layer protect us and all life on earth. But the dynamics of this layer are not constant and are influenced by its content of water, of various gases and also on the relative position of seas and continents — and depend on latitude and longitude, and day and night. We all know that.

So, what has created changes in the atmosphere behaviour in the past, such as the last big melt?

Proper scientists who have studied these events in detail, can associate huge forest fires (ash record) with the last big melt. Now... can we assume that the fires triggered the change or that the change triggered the fires or can we assume the fires accelerated the change? or was there a relationship or not? Some scientist propose that human use of fire as a tool to hunt and promote the growth of certain plants may have contributed to the change. We know that the sun activity is not constant either. Sun spots do appear, huge flares send vast amounts of energy hurling through space, some of which is collected by the earth's atmosphere, inducing change, most likely warming. Volcanic activity and bolides (meteor, comets) hitting the earth have also been culprits in climate change.

Via studies going back to the various times that entombed coal, oil and gas, one can also see parallels between sea levels, atmospheric and surface carbon abundance (including bio-carbon and CO2) and estimated temperatures — estimates reasonably accurate due to very serious study of palaeo-botany and other geological factors, including the upheaval of continents. When one finds "sedimented" beach ripples at high altitude does not mean the sea levels were that high, but a shallow sea floor was lifted up by the forces from below the earth. And the species of plants and animals imprinted in the rock give an idea of the range of climatic condition then, necessary for their survival, based on present species distribution.

So some scientists have studied the composition of the atmosphere as it was, over millions of years with some reasonably precise estimates... Although some scientists disagree, because one cannot be sure since one was not there — a strong correlation has been established between "possible" temperature and the carbon equation. Less carbon (in whatever form) in the atmosphere, the lower the temperature. More carbon in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature. These studies can be complicated by the possible presence of other gases, including water vapour. Under some conditions, more heat, more water vapour... leading to more cloud leading to less penetrating solar heat but more retention of heat... Thus appears much complexity of interaction between the change and the reactivity of the elements within the change.

The carbon equation was also "postulated" by carbon dioxide studies that have demonstrated that the gas accentuates the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Other gases do, including water vapour and methane (another "carbon" based gas).

One needs to assume that the spread of gases, such as CO2, in the atmosphere is uneven, due to the source of emission as well as the places of absorption. Temperatures are likely to be influenced differently in different environments.

But overall, an increase of CO2 is likely to increase the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.

At the end of last century, observations were showing an "ozone layer depletion" of the atmosphere — a depletion that was becoming alarming. It has been observed that the ozone layer protects life on earth from most of the UV radiation coming from the sun. The planet surface was starting to face huge doses of the "dangerous" radiation — often associated with malignant skin cancers and death.

Scientists feverishly worked on the problem and discovered that industrial emissions of fluorocarbons were at the very source of the ozone depletion... Very quickly, most of human fabrication and use of such gases were stopped by governments' legislation WORLDWIDE. At the time the fluorocarbons were used in various technologies — from fridges, air conditioning and dry cleaning. These industries had to "retool" overnight... Gases used in fridges nowdays are "much less" ozone depleting, but they are also somewhat less efficient at producing cold. Since then, the depletion has been arrested but the "regeneration" of the ozone layer is slow...
The pay-off though is for EVERYONE to see and accept...

The evidence — of the carbon equation in regard to global warming — is fairly strong, but the stakes are FAR HIGHER and more difficult to deal with than ozone depletion. Our ENTIRE INDUSTRIES of survival and comfort basically rely on burning and/or transforming as much carbon-based product as we can. Our entire economies are carbon-based. Since the dawn of civilisation, since our ancestors fell off their perch, humanity has relied on fire. And fire is mostly a carbon-oxygen chemical reaction. Thus the dilemma is: do we carry on burning...? DO WE CARRY ON BURNING... CARBON?

We burn so much carbon that we add between 2 and 3 ppm (parts per millions) of CO2 per annum — this not counting methane (about ten times more greenhouse inductor than CO2) and other greenhouse gases — to the "natural" balance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The present natural greenhouse balance is being shifted by our emissions towards warming... Since the beginning of the industrial age, we have added about 400 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere — some of which has been reabsorbed by the sea and the plants. Not strangely, the sea is now becoming "saturated" with CO2, turning slightly acidic, and we have modified the surface carbon storage and absorption by destroying the forests. In the last fifty years we have more than doubled the rate of greenhouse gases emissions. We have also increased our world population by a factor of 300 per cent. We have also eliminated many "natural" habitats and other carbon sinks. And as the changes occur, some previously naturally earth-trapped gases such as methane are released in the atmosphere, compounding the problem.

For some people, two parts per million appear as chicken-feed, but as mentioned before on this site, we use much less "part per million" in medicine to cure a headache for example... The influence of some substances in very small quantities, sometimes below measurable ppms, is powerful enough to change our metabolism.

Some scientists have calculated that there is a tipping point at which we cannot avoid a rise of 2 degree C by the end of this century. Some scientists have now calculated that it will be a rise of 6 degree C most likely. Strangely, most of the "scientific world" has moved on: Scientists have said their piece about global warming and, like the "ozone layer depletion" problem, have passed-on the baby to politicians and technologists, who have to make the hard yard now and find solutions. And some industries like the uranium nuclear industry are not the ideal answer.

Some politicians are stupid about global warming and propose to do nothing because they listen to the "comforting words" of some scientists-deniers. Some of these scientists are genuinely convinced (and mostly wrong in a difficult area of flux science), but most of these scientists-deniers are paid handsomely by the "polluters" to decry the existence of the problem. Our industrialists and bankers are not ready to let us impose massive necessary reduction of emissions...

Copenhagen global warming convention in search of a protocol is not for the faint-hearted. We need leadership to induce massive reduction of emissions. In relation to our population increase, we might get reductions by a small fart if we're lucky...

There is no magic word that can convince people that global warming is coming, because the solution has no magic in it and is somewhat too horrendous to contemplate... It demands a complete rethink of our value systems, especially economic and trading habits...

Meanwhile, our whisky is still cool but warming up though, as the ice in it melts, inexorably...


serious loss...

The East Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass for the last three years, according to an analysis of data from a gravity-measuring satellite mission.

The scientists involved say they are "surprised" by the finding, because the giant East Antarctic sheet, unlike the west, has been thought to be stable.

Other scientists say ice loss could not yet be pinned on climate change, and uncertainties in the data are large.

The US-based team reports its findings in the journal Nature Geoscience.

And why Gus?

I have lately believed in the K.I.S.S. principle and the argument that we spend too much time on the problem and not enough on the solution.

For example, the Howard “New Order” originally claimed that there was no Climate Change as such and then, under pressure, agreed to Planet warming while calling Al Gore a “peeved politician”.

During his some eleven years of selling our public assets to foreign Corporations, including the wanton sale of water to various business people for any type of venture was symptomatic of the Menses’ sale of anything that he could do to balance the books.  It worked for sixteen years. Thanks to the media.

Malcolm Turnbull, as Howard’s “Water Minister” actually signed a document of intent with the “Israelis” for their “expertise” in water control. Struth.  Luckily he was part of the Howard “New Order” who lost the election.

The expertise of these people was the confiscation of the Palestinian water methods practiced for centuries.  Fair dinkum.


What will be the Murdoch (Shanahan, Kelly, Milne) opinion on the outcome of the so-called Turnbull negotiation in “good faith”.


I have no axe to grind for Ian MacFarlane but, I believe that this man is sincere in everything he has been asked to do and, as such, he will negotiate in good faith.


However, if the Murdoch media correctly reports the result of the negotiations in “good faith” it will be interesting to read the attitude of “Paul Kelly” (mugs that is) and Murdoch may again make money from misleading journalism.


Whatever happens, whether Kevin Rudd has an ego; or 78 asylum seekers were accommodated with compassion (after five years in Indonesia) rather than drowning like the 365 men, women and children in Howard’s SIEV X; the issue is really Climate Change Rupert!


Let’s hope some laws are introduced to limit the power of unelected media moguls.


God bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.


What is the alternative - if there is one?

Many years ago, we were warned that tobacco was causing cancer.  Why did we ignore it? And who profited by it?

Many years ago, we were warned that asbestos, especially blue asbestos, was causing cancer. Why did we ignore it? And who profited by it?

Many years ago, we were warned of climate change and climate warming - why did we ignore it? And who wanted us to ignore it?

It has been reported that as far back as the nineteenth century we were warned.

To keep our thoughts concentrated - what could be the most irresponsible duty of care that was ignored or carelessly misinformed  to the citizens of all nations of the world who, because of the business interests, are suffering or dying from the pollution of our once wonderful planet. Of course it is business. And business is money.

We may hear the excuse that these business interests are creating jobs for our stupid uneduated citizens but, with technology, that foolish thought is removed and if it was not for profit, would they really care? The more the technology the less imployment?

IMHO the most concern I have is that the entire future of our planet, its existence and survival, is basically in the greedy hands of the Corporations.

God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.


climate change blues...

From George Monbiot

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists.


Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it [an email] here.

From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk

Sent: 29 October 2009

To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.


Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.

From Monbiot again:

This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that man-made climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.


Ahah... I'm sure the University of Redcar has a course in satiral-and-leg-pulling study, unless George, good for you, made up this ludicrous email where George W Bush is having intercourse with a red Mustang: The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang ...

Meanwhile at "Conspiracy Central", the serious side of Global warming is exposed:

This is a joint statement from the Met Office, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society on the state of the science of climate change ahead of the Copenhagen climate conference

The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

As three of the UK's leading scientific organisations involving most of the UK scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to the best possible science. We believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-making on policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change up to Copenhagen and beyond.

The 2007 assessment report of the UN's climate change panel (the IPCC) – made up of the world's foremost climate scientists – provided unequivocal evidence for a warming climate, and a high degree of certainty that human activities are largely responsible for global warming since the middle of the 20th century. However, the IPCC process is based only on information already published and even since the last assessment report the scientific evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened significantly:

• Global carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise, and methane concentrations have started to increase again after a decade of near stability;
• The decade 2000-09 has been warmer, on average, than any other decade in the previous 150 years;
• Observed changes in precipitation (decreases in the subtropics and increases in high latitudes) have been at the upper limit of model projections;
• Arctic summer sea ice cover declined suddenly in 2007 and 2008, prompting the realisation that this environment may be far more vulnerable to change than previously thought;
• There is increasing evidence of continued and accelerating sea-level rises around the world.

We expect some of the most significant impacts of climate change to occur when natural variability is exacerbated by long-term global warming, so that even small changes in global temperatures can produce damaging local and regional effects. Year on year the evidence is growing that damaging climate and weather events - potentially intensified by global warming - are already happening and beginning to affect society and ecosystems. This includes:

• In the UK, heavier daily rainfall leading to local flooding such as in the summer of 2007;
• Increased risk of summer heat waves such as the summers of 2003 across the UK and Europe;
• Around the world, increasing incidence of extreme weather events with unprecedented levels of damage to society and infrastructure. This year's unusually destructive typhoon season in south-east Asia, while not easy to attribute directly to climate change, illustrates the vulnerabilities to such events;
• Sea level rises leading to dangerous exposure of populations in, for example, Bangladesh, the Maldives and other island states;
• Persistent droughts, leading to pressures on water and food resources, and the increasing incidence of forest fires in regions where future projections indicate long term reductions in rainfall, such as south-west Australia and the Mediterranean.

These emerging signals are consistent with what we expect from our projections, giving us confidence in the science and models that underpin them. In the absence of action to mitigate climate change, we can expect much larger changes in the coming decades than have been seen so far.

Some countries and regions are already vulnerable to climate variability and change, but in the coming decades all countries will be affected, regardless of their affluence or individual emissions. Climate change will have major consequences for food production, water availability, ecosystems and human health, migration pressures, and regional instability. In the UK, we will be affected both directly and indirectly, through the effects of climate change on, for example, global markets (notably in food), health, extent of flooding, and sea levels.

The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to long-term changes in the climate system that will persist for millennia. Our growing understanding of the balance of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial systems tells us that the greater the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the greater the risk of long-term damage to Earth's life support systems. Known or probable damage includes ocean acidification, loss of rain forests, degradation of ecosystems, and desertification. These effects will lead to loss of biodiversity and reduced agricultural productivity. Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases can substantially limit the extent and severity of long-term climate change.


The 2007 IPCC assessment, the most comprehensive and respected analysis of climate change to date, states clearly that without substantial global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions we can likely expect a world of increasing droughts, floods and species loss, of rising seas and displaced human populations. However even since the 2007 IPCC assessment the evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened. The scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen is very strong. Without co-ordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilisation could be severe.

Prof Julia Slingo, chief scientist, Met Office; Prof Alan Thorpe, chief executive, Natural Environment Research Council; Lord Rees, president, the Royal Society


Meanwhile in Cumbria:


Tornado, gales and more storms batter Britain

Extreme weather conditions battered England today. More heavy rain is forecast for flood-hit Cumbria, a driver was killed when a tree was blown on to his van in Sussex and a tornado hit Derby

* In Cumbria, people returning to their flood-ravaged homes and businesses were warned that further heavy rainfall is expected overnight. Gusts of at least 70mph are also forecast.


More from Gus in the next instalment... See toon at top...


global warming dues...

The next question about climate change is what are the likely results of temperature rise?

Here are Gus' estimates based on years of perusing previous climatic shifts from 3.5 billion years ago to the present.

There is an inevitability of a rise by an average of two degrees by the end of this century.
This range of temperature on earth would not be the first time this happened. I have not counted exactly but I would bet that — since life moved from the seas onto "dry land" 470 million years ago — there has been more than a couple of hundred times when the temperature of the earth has been quite higher than "plus 2 degree above present temperature" on earth.

Presently, there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to keep this self-generating momentum going, as the ice melts (see the ice in the whisky syndrome above). Of course the rise in temperature won't be even around the globe. Most likely the rise of 2 degrees will be at the temperate regions, a rise of 4 degrees in the polar regions and a rise of one degree in the equatorial region.

What will be the effect of such a rise?
The sea level will rise by about 60 centimetres worldwide.
Survival of some species of plants and animals in temperate regions will be altered as to promote migration towards the cooler parts.
Habitat for most species will be altered towards uncertainty and unsuitability.
Human occupation of most lands will also prohibit the shift of most animal species, leading to massive extinction — or to "vegetative" state of species in zoos and labs, or to genetic material survival in depositories.
Some plants "migration" could be made easier by warming but the need for more arable land to feed the growing hordes of humans will prohibit the spread of "natural" species.
Plants are a strange lot. Some species spread by letting their seeds fly long distances, Some plant seeds may float on the sea for years, while others plants will seem to collapse horizontally as if they were weak — while actually they are deliberately bending over with stronger shoots, to spread seeds away from their own roots. Sometimes they replant themselves, away from their own "original" roots. They "walk". The "oldest" plant on earth survives in Tasmania by having replanted itself many many times, over many hectares, for more than 10,000 years...
Humans will survive well apart from the poorest. We can adapt as long as we do not muck up the system further.
This result is estimated should we stop ALL our emissions of CO2 NOW.

More emissions on the way
Should we do nothing to our carbon-based emissions, the temperature rise by the end of this century is likely to be 6 degrees.
This will involve a quick climate change around 2030 (give or take 5 years — see 2032 and read all articles on that line of comments) and another around 2070 (give or take 10 years), apart from a "steady rise" (with fluctuation) of temperature during other times. As temperature rise, there is likely to be more vapours in certain part of the atmosphere, possibly leading to some massive super storms in regions left previously untouched. In some regions, the more heat, the more the air absorbs "clear" vapours, thus not forming cloud cover, leading to more heat from the sun coming through and more heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect of other gases.
The sea level rise will be between 5 and 10 metres by 2100.

The Nine Degree step.
Should we do nothing to our carbon-based emission, the process is likely to continue till a "plateau" is reached at 9 degree C above present temperature, by 2130. By then the sea level rise will be anything between 16 and 35 metres above present levels. These estimates are based on previous occurrence of climate change under such conditions.
Note: This scenario has happened before on earth at least more than twenty times since life colonised land. Note this scenario is also shown at full speed. It could take 100 years longer to reach the full 9 degree step but in geological time-scale this is chicken feed. The rise of temperature creates "catastrophic" conditions and massive shift of survival techniques for life on earth. Species with little adaptable range get a total wipe out, those with greater range of adaptability still suffer, but find places to survive well.

The Twelve Degree Step.
A "maximum" sea level above present level could be reached by 2170 at about 100 metres and a full blown temperature rise of 12 degree C above present level. This would mean no ice on Greenland, no ice at the arctic all year around and only a small ice sheet left on Antarctica "in winter". This would be around the maximum "balanced" heat exchange between space and the atmosphere as long as no further factors, such as sun flares or bolides or volcanoes come into play. Siberia would be experiencing tropical summers. "Catastrophic change" such a this has happened at least three times since life came to colonise land on earth from the sea. The most dramatic was about 120 million years ago, at the beginning of the Cretaceous. But there were others in the Devonian times. Such event also happened on earth, many times before, when life on earth was in the seas only.

Climate change can happen over thousands of years, over millions of years or over centuries only. The shorter the time, the more "traumatic" the change, although not necessarily nor exclusively.

Thus there is nothing new about climate warming and cooling. "Catastrophic" climatic fluctuation have happened before, including the last big melt of only 12,000 years ago. Then the sea level rose by more than 75 metres, (possibly likely more than 100 metres).

Our present dilemma is to find out IF there is a global warming presently, what is the SOURCE of it, how fast could it ACCELERATE and find out if we can we MITIGATE it.

The answers are most likely:
* Yes there is a FAST climate change towards warm (in relation to geological time-frame of previous changes, one would say CATASTROPHIC)...

* The source is "most likely" (99.9 %) to be CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

* The greenhouse effect can accelerate due to HUMAN activities releasing CO2, METHANE and other gases.

* YES WE CAN mitigate some of the problem. My most optimistic guess is that by 2100 humanity will have come to terms with its own influence on climatic conditions and the rise would have been contained at the respectable level of "plus 4" degree above what temperatures are now... (still catastrophic by survival standards). My realistic approach is that we won't do anything worthwhile and let the full blown "catastrophic" process take place.

The ETS proposed by the present Australian governments are ghastly. But they are the first of governmental measures in this country that fully acknowledge that global warming is on. within a couple of years from now more stringent measures will come necessarily obvious.
Thus, it is my midget viewpoint that, in the senate, the Greens should approve, reluctantly as they would, the skewed ETS that are even being watered down with concessions to suit the Liberals, who in general do not believe in "global warming" but control the Senate. A double dissolution would be dicey but if needed so be it.

Doing a small heavy step is better than doing nothing...
There are much "better ways" to deal with the problem but the political landscape is not ready yet... This will come in time once we move on, how slowly we do... Within ten years we will have to agressively cut down on our emissions. By then we will regret no having do so much earlier.
Peace. see toon at top and read article below it,

the carbon equation

The carbon equation on this planet

Carbon is mostly a surface element, like oxygen and hydrogen.
That is to say these elements only appear at the surface of the planet or have combined, such as in shallow rocks say carbonates (with calcium) that formed at the surface of the earth, then got buried or modified (such as marble) by natural upheavals. Carbon itself has also been entombed in various forms, from gas, to coal, to oil — especially during and after some eras such as the Carboniferous (340 to 300 million years ago) —  and is still being being entombed in the decay of peat, should the peat be covered then by layers of sediments.

Coal and oil pockets were formed mostly on continents and their continental shelves, as the deep sea floors regenerate themselves and no sea floor is older than 150 million years. The decay of plants such as ferns (giant ferns) created the coal seams (the dead plants accumulated in non aerobic conditions in shallow depressions — possibly under water), while oil formed by the decay of animals, such as plankton, in shallow seas. Complex traumatic events led to acceleration of the process — events that included climate change.

Here, I am not going into the details as these processes took millions of years, and processes that interfered with — as well as was interfered by — climatic conditions.

After the formation of the earth as a planet, several steps led to life on earth, including the change of the gaseous vapour around the planet into a more specific thinner atmosphere. The first life forms on earth, enzymes, proteins and protozoic low-life in the liquid soup that was the "warm" seas, are mostly credited in modifying these vapours into a more "friendly" atmostphere... We can find evidence that, by about 3.5 billion years ago, the atmosphere was getting close to what it is now. Since these beginnings, the relationship between oxygen, hydrogen and carbon has been tightly-bonded in the gaseous/surface envelope so created. Oxygen and hydrogen had combined to make steam, thus water as cooling happened, carbon and oxygen combined to make carbon monoxide and dioxide, the later much more stable, and hydrogen, carbon and oxygen combined to make hydrocarbons, the first molecules necessary for the formation of life.

Carbon is essential for the construct of life. We're made of "70 per cent water" but our cells are all carbon base.

99% of the mass of the human body is made up of only six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Every organic molecule contains carbon. Since 65-90% of each body cell consists of water (by weight), it isn't surprising that oxygen and hydrogen are major components of the body.

All of this we understand and accept, unless we believe in god or the little green men.

The carbon/oxygen/hydrogen equation is a great part of the evolution of this planet.

After huge amounts of carbon got entombed, the leftover on the surface maintained a "balance" between plants, CO2 and animal life, and the seas. This balance was upended a few times by events, such as bolides (meteors and comets) impacts, volcanoes, solar flares — some of which events released part of the trapped carbon (in sinks such as the seas, or by burning plants). These releases did affect the climate, either contributing to regeneration of plants that reabsorbed the carbon or contributing to increase of the heat, itself changing the nature and distribution of life on earth.

Presently, say in the last 2000 years of human industrious pursuit, we have contributed to the release of CO2 in the atmosphere, but our contribution was modest till the beginning of the industrial age. This was due to low emission per capita despite burning wood (and coal) to keep warm, and also to a low population — often kept in check with wars and pestilence.

But since the beginning of the industrial and medicinal revolution, humans have changed the "balance" of the carbon equation by bringing back onto the deck, the vast "reserves" of entombed carbon. Every year we are adding billions of tonnes of carbon in various productive ways, including electricity generation, some of which is used to keep us "cool".

Meanwhile, entombed carbon can burn also below the surface as part of the natural "process"...

Overall the net result of present human activity on the carbon equation is adding about 2 to 3 ppm (parts per million) of EXTRA CO2 per year to the natural carbon equation into the atmosphere... If we think this won't have any effect on the price of fish in terms of global warming, we are deluded, stupid or dumb.

The ghosts of entombed-carbon-past are going to haunt us beyond our wildest dreams.

Peace. see whisky and ice melting at top.

go play with a barbie doll...

Here comes Ms Devine to the fore of global bullshit weather front...

Gus: Miranda may live in Sydney but I would guess she stays cool in air conditioned comfort where the pleasant atmosphere is at 22 degree C all year round... Presently the month of November in Sydney is going to break all records (not that of maximum temperature yet, but still a few days to go) but record for the "longest sustained November warmth". This is "spring". In Sydney Australia, spring usually lasts a couple of days and then fluctuates between warm and cool...

So far, Most days in this November 2009 have been about 4 degrees C above the average minimum and about 3 degrees C above the average maximum... This observation was made after what was described by the met bureau as a "mild winter", about 2 degrees C above average... and "warmer" months of September and October too.. In November, we've had quite a few days above 30 degrees C (6 degrees above average) and one day at 41 degrees C (16 degrees C above average) with a temperature sustained above 30 degrees C through some nights till the early next mornings.

Still, this is no indication of global warming... But this will be counted in it... Sure... the rest of the world could be freezing over like hell... But my observation shows that it's not...

The main conspiracy this decade was orchestrated by Bush and his cohorts to go and invade Iraq.

The second large conspiracy this decade has been to orchestrate a climate change denial.

The third largest conspiracy has been to stop individuals becoming self-sufficient, to stay dependent on the teats of industrial supplies of energy...


I am prepared to believe that some of the scientific establishments on global warming have been infiltrated by fierce deniers, probably "scientists" secretly paid by large industries in the conspiracy to deny... or these wavering scientists could be innocent bystanders caught in a game of double cross... But I would bet these deniers, about four or five "scientists" have cleverly exploited the fluctuations in uncertainty about climate change and thus — without understanding the problem — tried to question the good work of those who are working to find a solution or analysis. To a large extend these questioners  have failed miserably, although they are full-blown heroes in Ms Devine's bosom and to other ill-informed deniers...

As mentioned on this site before, science of such kind (I call climate change science a flux science) has some uncertainty about it. Too difficult to predict where and how it will work day to day... But the trends are strong.

Politics is not science, economics is not science. Both disciplines of human activities are "art forms" that rely on the arbitrary acceptance of flimsy shifting values — from the price of shells to that of gold — from barbaric hordes to congress in America — with a few artful furphies dropped-in, such as religious beliefs...

Flux science is the study of relative complex change, with many unsettled parameters, in which small factors, as well as the big changes, can influence the greater flux of events. There is a bit of chaos theory in the process of predicting the next, when the previous step can STILL be modified by small imponderables while the next is happening. But there are brackets of opportunity and of strong possibilities in the developing processes.

We cannot know the exact damage done by climate change, nor its precise value. Nor can we predict with certainty the influence of CO2 in the atmosphere at a particular moment, or in a particular year.

Flux science involves a lot of statistical data study as well as some common sense input based on controlled repeatable experiments with less elements to dea with — common sense being a rarely used ingredient in politics, economics, and nor in Ms Devine articles. For example, weather forecasters can predict the path of a hurricane with a reasonable degree of precision with a bracket of possibilities based on previous observations of paths and also based on the meteorological data from previous situation which developed in a particular way. But sometimes they can get it wrong. When weather forecasters predict the temperature in Sydney will be 30 degrees C and it only reaches 27 degrees, are they so wrong especially when they might have also predicted 32 at Mascot (Sydney airport) but the maximum temperature there might turn out to be 34.

Thus for me, following my studious foray into the geological history of the Earth in the 1980s, I have come up with a much simpler device as explained in climate change line of articles on this site: The carbon equation as a parallel source of prediction

Thus below I will attack Ms Devine's lies, one at a time...

Armageddon is not nigh.

Armageddon is not nigh. Correct. Climate change proponent never stated that it was coming. Armageddon is a fictional view of the future of the earth in erroneous belief systems. We all know that the earth will not last forever though (but for at least another 3 billion years).

The planet has been cooling for almost a decade

Wrong. The panet has not been warming as generally understood by some people, but as mentioned in the ice in the whisky, the drink is getting cooler but the SUM-TOTAL of the drink temperature is trending towards warming.

and the fabled climate computer models never predicted that.

Wrong. The fabled climate computers PREDICTED some cooling, especially in the UK, where they are experiencing "floods and storms of the century" at the moment.

And now damning emails leaked from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia have implicated some famous climate scientists in a conspiracy to manipulate data

Wrong. These eminent scientists were not in a conspiracy but prepared to take the highest values in the bracket of possibility, thus towards the worst scenario, which in my studies have shown to be too conservative anyway.

and suppress evidence to exaggerate the case man-made ''runaway'' global warming is threatening the planet. We see clearly the rotten heart of the propaganda machine that has driven the world to the brink of insanity on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.

Wrong. Some evidence of "cooling" are incidental factors to the big picture but some uncertainties would have affected the perceptions of the untrained eye into contemptuous smugness. Not on your nelly. Climate change is REAL.

More than 1000 emails and 3000 documents, covering correspondence between climate scientists for more than a decade, was posted on a Russian website with a link to the climate sceptic blog Air Vent on November 17, by someone using the name FOIA (presumably after the Freedom of Information Act). FOIA wrote: ''We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.''

Sure, some people may be pissed off but most likely they are either plants to spruik denial or they are stupid, as it means that in their little window of observation, they have not seen nor understood the bigger picture.

"Armageddon is not nigh." Agreed... But cooling?... My foot.

"Another email to Mann, from Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC lead author on October 12, titled ''BBC U-turn on climate'', states: ''The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't . . . Our observing system is inadequate.''

Sure: Totally agree: Our observing system is inadequate... We need far more data imputed into the system. But WE CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE LACK OF WARMING: Ice cube in the whisky syndrome...

The good thing is people can now see the tactics of the alarmists and their army of bovver boys. You can read the emails online and then you can read the sly attempts to explain away the misdeeds. Despite their feigned reasonableness and world-weary calm over the email scandal, climate alarmists are in a mad fumbling panic. They are exposed as dangerous megalomaniacs, foolish, but with enormous power.

Wrong. There is warming at the moment but it is hidden in the fact that the ICE IS MELTING WHILE COOLING THE WHISKY... And the ice is melting three times faster than the worst prediction...(Computer climate models need to be "conservative")...  The "alarmists" have to be so because the stupid complacent people are stopping proper understanding of the massive problem.

Their power came from the complicity of the media and because it suited a certain type of politician to build a new bureaucracy and pose as an environmental saviour, never having to face up to the consequences of being wrong."

Crap. scientists know the uncertainty of what they do but they are confident about the trends.


Why do I bother arguing with Ms Devine?...

She treats the climate alarmists with such contempt, she deserves to be treated the same way. Climate change is too real.

Miranda, Leave the discussion to the know-all smart-arses like me. Go and play with your Barbie dolls.

Peace... and read all comments from top down plus all others on this site referring to this subject...

possibly the third warmest...

This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office.

The UK's weather service projects that, unless there is an exceptionally cold spell before the end of the year, temperatures will be up on last year.

Climate sceptics had pointed out that the temperature rise appeared to have stalled in the last decade or so.

That was caused in part by the Pacific La Nina current, which cools the Earth.

But the influence of La Nina declined in the spring and the Met Office project that, barring a very cold December, this year will be the fifth warmest on record.

Other sources say it could even be the third warmest.


The month of November in Sydney, Australia, has been torrid. Warm, hot, warm, day and night, possibly the warmest November on record by at least 2 degrees C (the met bureau might come with a figure of 4 degree C above average) presently at 8:30 PM the temperature is 2.5 degrees C above daily average maximum... This is nothing to gloat about for us, the climate change theorists. It just means we have to act faster than what is possible to arrest the worst. See more climate change.

record record!!...

Sydneysiders can expect a warmer than average summer after the state's hottest November on record, the Bureau of Meteorology says.

NSW recorded an average maximum temperature of 33.3 degrees, 5.2 degrees above the historical average of 27.8 for the month, bureau climatologist Agata Imielska said.

"It's also the eighth consecutive month with above average minimum and mean temperatures," she said.

The highest temperature was 46.8 degrees - recorded at Wanaaring Post Office in north-west NSW on November 20. Two days before, Tibooburra recorded 46.4 degrees.

The previous record temperature was 46.1 degrees at Coonamble in 1944.

The higher temperatures are a result of the El Nino weather pattern and climate change, Ms Imielska said.


read my comment in the blog above this one... see toon and my comments above... Note: 33.3 is about 8 degrees C above "average" maximum for the month. Told you so. I was "restrained" in my estimate so I would not look silly, but my personal observation was that the maximum temperature was about 6 degree C above. On top of this, the minimum for November would have been in the same range above average.

southern fridge....

Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica.

Conducted by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), it says that warming seas are accelerating melting in the west of the continent.

Ozone loss has cooled the region, it says, shielding it from global warming.

Rising temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula are making life suitable for invasive species on land and sea.

The report - Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment - was written using contributions from 100 leading scientists in various disciplines, and reviewed by a further 200.

SCAR's executive director Dr Colin Summerhayes said it painted a picture of "the creeping global catastrophe that we face".

"The temperature of the air is increasing, the temperature of the ocean is increasing, sea levels are rising - and the Sun appears to have very little influence on what we see," he said.

see toon at top and more climate change...

danish suicide pact....

Mohammed Nasheed knows what global warming means, because he sees it every day. He survived years of imprisonment and torture to lead his country – the Maldives – to democracy. But now, as its President, he is being forced to watch as his homeland is wiped from the map. With each year that passes, the rising sea claims more land, and at the current rate it will claim everything.

He knows why. We know why. It is because we have released massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and we aren't stopping. Unless we turn around – fast – the Maldives will be gone.

Today, he has a final plea. President Nasheed says: "Copenhagen can be one of two things. It can be an historic event where the world unites against carbon pollution in a collective spirit of co-operation and collaboration, or Copenhagen can be a suicide pact. The choice is that stark."


Now you know why I call all the climate change deniers, "idiots". I should actually define then as criminals... INCLUDING the Greens in this country who, instead of helping start the ball rolling slowly, have decided to do nothing until all is to be done... The silly bums... Read article below image at top and read more climate change. If it seams I am trying to scare you, you're right... The problem is actually scarier than that BECAUSE WE CANNOT FEEL IT. So, starting December, Summer in Sydney, with temperatures about two degrees C below average, the deniers rejoice and dance like a pod of Miranda Devine... But looking at the local weather chart, the next few days temperatures are likely to be well above average yet again, like they were in November. Who knows... a massive surge of temperature might make then see the light... But I doubt it. The deniers are popes in charge of crucifying Galileo and they won't stop till he recants and hell freezes over...

we're off our tree...

E-mails hacked from a climate research institute suggest climate change does not have a human cause, according to Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator.

Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that the issue will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit, with countries unwilling to cut emissions.

Scientists say the e-mails from the University of East Anglia do not alter the picture of man-made warming.

Meanwhile, India has set a target for curbing the rise in its CO2 emissions.

Environment minister Jairam Ramesh pledged to cut India's emissions intensity - the amount of greenhouse gases produced for every unit of GDP - by 20-25% by 2020, "if we get support from the international community".

Human impact denied

The e-mails issue arose two weeks ago when hundreds of messages between scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and their peers around the world were posted on the world wide web, along with other documents.

It's a transparent attempt to discredit the scientific evidence base and sow confusion ahead of the talks in Copenhagen
Malini Mehra
Centre for Social Markets
It appears that the material was hacked or leaked; a police investigation has yet to reveal which.


Gus: Obviously, the grand doodahs-suppliers of petroleum and coal — like Australia for coal and Saudi Arabia for oil — are doing all they can to discredit the Climate Change theory. The longer they discredit the "carbon equation" in relation to climate warming, the more money they're going to make.

Nonetheless the present government in Australia, ready to do something in the right direction about climate change, was going a bit of the way with some ETS (emission trading scheme). So, the Greens and the Liberals who control the Australian Senate sunk the project because "it was too little for the Greens (we-should-be-living-in-caves political party) and far too much for the Liberals (Conservative party of the rich-born-to-rule-don't-rock-the-boat-shoot-if-it-moves class)"... Both groups are stupid idiots... Not that the ETS would be fantastic but that would be the beginning of acknowledging there is a problem for which humanity is the major culprit, while doing a little towards a solution.

I know... To avoid a dramatic climate change, what we have to do is this: first, arrest all CO2 emissions now, and second, reduce our population by a billion. Third we have to hope for the best. But that won't happen. Politically, this can't happen.

The pain from the quick change could not be compensated by new smart technologies —and ideologies. In our collective mind, we still live in the night of the darkest ages, despite our smart phones and genetic manipulation advancements. Only a few people have grasped the mindset of the future we're fabricating for us... Even the brightest of our scientists argue about the global status.

So there doubt in the mind of too many people — especially those whose god is merciful, revengeful, loving and banqueting. This doubt is cleverly cultivated by bastards deniers — the priests of carbon burning and those scientists who claim the figures don't fit their views of the theory despite knowing the picture is far too incomplete.

Science cannot "prove" anything anytime anyway, especially flux-science — not even gravity. Science is the ability to manage uncertainty, by showing that, till proven to the contrary, there are relative "laws" that govern our universe: An apple does not fall upwards until proven otherwise...

Thus there is elasticity in the climate warming science... But there is also an undeniable probability (flux science). The figures and experiments show that something is happening. Observations show that climate is changing (glaciers are melting fast) but then we could be deluded to believe that it's induced by humans burning carbon or that it's part of a normal cycle of change in the grander scheme of all and, soon, things will be hanky dory.

But my dead granny common sense tells me "she'll be not right mate...". Things are not as they should. My mandarins are ripening in summer?... My personal common sense and my own calculated estimates tell me we're heading towards a massive changenot an Armageddon or end-of-the-world sort of thing, as the deniers claim we're claiming. We going towards a change that will make things quite uncomfortable for us — humans — and severely stressing for other creatures on this planet, to the point of extinction. That we're responsible, guilty or not, is for our CO2 and our methane to decide...

And do we care about orangutans when there is so much money to be made from destroying their habitats for cultivating palm oil?... We've been doing the same crap since we came down from our tree. Burn, modify, kill, cultivate, invade, displace, piss in our dinner plate, pollute, destroy, fight, tame the wild till the wild disappear, zap critters, spray bugs, land clearing, chop trees, napalm forests, fiddle with genes, delude, and we've survived successfully... (although some of the species we've shot did not survive... but who cares?).

We must be off our tree should we think we're influencing the climate on this little planet, mustn't we? He he...

See image at top and ponder... Peace.

The "Mad Monk", the "Red-neck" and the "poodle".

The Liberals and now the Nationalists have developed a method of repeating the same phrases as each other in order to imprint that in the minds of the voters.


One of them is to destroy Kevin Rudd’s very acceptable image for which he has worked so tirelessly since his election in every field possible there is hardly an Australian Federal problem that he and his ministers have not tackled in their two years.


The desperation in the Coal-ition (stole that from you Gus) is so patently obvious that we can only hope that the media will report it fairly to the people.  By electing the Mad Monk to stand astride the Australian political landscape, with the “screaming red-neck” Barnaby Joyce by his side and the “poodle” doing his narcissus best to discredit the very capable Speaker of the House – one can only imagine how Murdoch’s puppet journos will lift the credibility of that group so as to be a genuine threat to our Federal Government.


IMHO the “Axis of evil intent” namely Abbott, Joyce and Minchin, will (should) have to sell to the public the reasons for their AC/DC attitude to climate change; taxation; the economy – and in particular WorkChoices.  The latter will be euphemized to be more deceptive even than the original.


While spruiking the same phrases in concert with each other; they praise their opposition to any of the Federal Government’s policies in the Senate but, they will renew Howard’s “New Order” principle of removing any rights of Unions of Workers to represent their members or even to exist.  Yet, the mostly Foreign Corporations, which they absolutely represent, have more Unions (called all sorts of things from Associations to Councils) than the workers of this nation.


The principle of individual contracts was a hangover from the industrial revolution in England and these facts can be witnessed in Barcaldine Queensland where they were the cause of proving that unions were the only way that the beggar workers could get a fair go.


Absolute servitude or starve – no doubt about that.  Now Abbott wants a return to "my way or the highway".


On the most important issue of Climate Change and what to do about it – the Coalition are depending on the extreme right media to sell their lies and obfuscations to the most gullible of our citizens.


They have managed to skew the issue by using the Howard/Costello averaging method to hide the true and unbalanced effect of anything and everything.  They have argued that the Rudd Government’s attempt to reduce CO2 emissions will not significantly effect the climate change itself but, they avoid saying that we are the world’s biggest polluter per capita – and that would certainly change if we try. 


Their “protect the foreign interests first” attitude is a sorry condemnation of their parties.


God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.


ice in the whisky syndrome....

A vast iceberg which broke off the Antarctic continent this month could disrupt the world's ocean currents and weather patterns, scientists warn.

Australian researchers say the iceberg - the size of Luxembourg - could block an area that produces a quarter of the world's dense and very cold seawater.

They say a slowdown in the production of this water could result in colder winters in the north Atlantic.

The iceberg is currently floating south of Australia.

Dr Neal Young, a glaciologist at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Research Centre in Tasmania, told the BBC that any disruption to the production of the super cold water - known as bottom water - in the region would affect ocean currents, and consequently weather patterns, for years to come.


see image at top and read all climate change comments below and all over this site... Including the ice in the whisky syndrome...

startled to see big changes unfold...

As Glaciers Melt, Scientists Seek New Data on Rising Seas

TASIILAQ, Greenland — With a tense pilot gripping the stick, the helicopter hovered above the water, a red speck of machinery lost in a wilderness of rock and ice.

To the right, a great fjord stretched toward the sea, choked with icebergs. To the left loomed one of the immense glaciers that bring ice from the top of the Greenland ice sheet and dump it into the ocean.

Hanging out the sides of the craft, two scientists sent a measuring device plunging into the water, between ice floes. Near the bottom, it reported a temperature of 40 degrees. It was the latest in a string of troubling measurements showing that the water was warm enough to melt glaciers rapidly from below.

“That’s the highest we’ve seen this far up the fjord,” said one of the scientists, Fiammetta Straneo.

The temperature reading was a new scrap of information in the effort to answer one of the most urgent — and most widely debated — questions facing humanity: How fast is the world’s ice going to melt?

Scientists long believed that the collapse of the gigantic ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years, with sea level possibly rising as little as seven inches in this century, about the same amount as in the 20th century.

But researchers have recently been startled to see big changes unfold in both Greenland and Antarctica.

As a result of recent calculations that take the changes into account, many scientists now say that sea level is likely to rise perhaps three feet by 2100 — an increase that, should it come to pass, would pose a threat to coastal regions the world over.


see toon and story at top...

climate change is real...

The majority of the world's climate scientists agree: climate change is real, we are causing it and it's happening right now. But despite the scientific consensus, Australia is still deeply divided about what we should do and whether we should do anything at all. We've asked some of Australia's leading academics and researchers to look at the science supporting climate change and the efforts to discredit it.

An open letter from Australia's science community asserts that climate change is happening, but vested interests and the media are distorting the facts.

The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes. Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity. Understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes. Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of "balance" by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called "sceptics" to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.


see toon and article at top...