So are you saying that whether or not scientists who claim to be experts in GW act as if it is happening, that is not important, but rather we should be worrying about what some journalist with no climate quals might say?

Seriously?

Might I respectfully suggest that Bolt, like most of the rest of us is not a climate specialist, so he and we have to glean what we can from what the climate specialists say and DO. So inconsistencies that AB or you or I may have in our arguments are likely to be inevitable since none of us are climate scientists (or are you?). Add to that the number of disagreements over details within the climate science community, (including the actual numbers of GW), and you might see why the rest of the community is not acting as if GW exists.

If you don’t think that the rest of us acting as if AGW does not exist is a problem, then what is the problem for you? Why the ‘sheesh’ in your post previously?

If you cannot see that unless climate scientists actually act as if there is AGW, then the rest of us (including AB) might be skeptical and keep buying bigger aircons and fridges, I cannot advance any further argument.

But you will be repeating your ‘sheesh’ comments of your earlier post a lot in the next few years I think.

Not.

Did they completely misrepresent the true facts about the temperature trend, or not?

That is the real issue here, not whether a handful of scientist flew to a conference or not.

All them IPCC people getting in planes and going to Bali and other places instead of videoconferencing mean anything to you?

From what I can see, many of them claim to be experts in the field of meteorology and climate science. Do you really think that if the IPCC junketeers really thought that AGW was happening and the world was in danger, they would be spewing out CO2 in planes going to Bali? (I think it was Spain the time before).

If those people who have the technical knowledge keep acting like AGW don’t exist, I am not sure why the rest of us should. Which gets back to your point about idiots and liars – which do you think the IPCC is?

In fact, have a talk to your local power company and let them show you the ever increasingly spinning power dials on our conventional power stations. These power companies and governments have been pushing conservation messages for the past twenty years, and yet people keep buying bigger appliances and FWD sales have gone through the roof. For all the talk about supposed AGW, they ain’t that many people who act as if it exists. I know, cos I discussed it the other day in my favourite al fresco restaurant what uses those nice gas burners so AGW concerned patrons can keep warm outside instead of going inside in the cold.

Actually, if you look at the records of power usage, and the tendency of people to increase their energy usage, you would be forgiven for thinking that AGW belief is still a fringe religion.

Shakes head. Complete and utter crap, of the most disingenuous kind.

2007 was the equal second warmest year on record. How the f**k could that possibly be described as a ‘dramatic cooling’?

Global average temps are now at least 0.6C higher than in pre-1960, and the long term trend is clearly strongly upwards.

There is no longer any polite way to say this:

Anybody who believes or says otherwise about global temp trends is either an idiot or a liar, and often both, and anybody who relies on Bolt for accurate info about this subject deserves all the ridicule they get. There is no longer any excuse for not informing yourself properly about these basic facts from the primary scientific sources. It is all available easily on the net.

Sheesh.

Does anyone else get the distinct impression that one of the RWDB bloggers has linked Rexs post and sent the shouting hordes in this general direction?

As Gummo pointed out, we got linked by Bolt himself which has brought a few hundred visitors to our humble abode. Tim Blair has sent bigger crowds to beat up Chris Sheill. And I live in hope of someday getting frontpage at Slashdot.

I also disagree that the IPCC has understated the risks, but so what – I don’t believe anyone really has much idea of what the likely range of responses to a given rise or decline in temperature is. I just don’t believe that human extinction is one of them.

The other difference between James Lovelock and Andrew Bolt is that one of them knows what he is talking about, and the other one doesn’t.

So when the one who knows what he’s talking about says we’re screwed, the response of the commenters is naturally to concentrate exclusively on analysing the thoughts and arguments of the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Makes sense to me. La, la, la, can’t hear you.

I would say, though, that Bolt considers it quite possible that the world is growing (slowly and slightly) warmer, and that this is partly about human-sourced carbon emissions.

Where he diverges fundamentally from the pack is what we believe are the consequences of this. Largely, he thinks that they are unlikely to be very serious. Further, he thinks that if they do eventuate, they are most likely to be best met by more growth and technological development.

From the comments here, it seems that everyone agrees that it is Bolt’s view that the scientific measurements and projections of temperature provide no evidence of global warming.

But I think there may be equivocation as to whether Mr. Bolt believes that C02 plays a role in global worming or not.

On the one hand Luke, Simon, Cohenite all interpret Bolt’s position as that CO2 has negligible conribution. While as Gummo points out – Bolt says “China is now in charge. It will set the worlds temperature.” So the question then becomes to what level does Mr. Bolt think that CO2 emmission have an effect on global warming?

In the wise words of Bob Carter…. It depends.

Just watch this for a bit of insight of the scope of things.

Your argument might stand up if Bolt hadn’t declared, earlier in the linked article:

Folks, get over this white man’s burden thing. China is now in charge. It will set the world’s temperature.

Maybe we should blame a subby stuck for column inches for pulling the “If global warming is caused by human activity then …” clause from the front of that second sentence. Or something like that.

It’s perfectly possible to make such an argument in an intellectually consistent way – ie, ‘the theory of global warming caused by men is incorrect, however, if that theory were correct, then we might want to change our approach to emissions by developing nations such as China and India if we want to make a difference.’

You *could*, of course, argue that by claiming that global warming doesn’t exist, Bolt doesn’t have permission to engage and critique the arguments of those who think global warming does exist. But you couldn’t do that by arguing Bolt is being inconsistent – he isn’t. And you would also look rather like you were trying to pre-emptively shut up all criticism on spurious moral grounds.

Does anyone else get the distinct impression that one of the RWDB bloggers has linked Rexs post and sent the shouting hordes in this general direction?

Depends on who you’d regard as a(n) RWDB.

Bolt is saying that AGW is BS.

This does not prevent him from also pointing out to those shrieking that we must “do something for the children” that China will be spewing out more than we can cut even if we all go live in caves.

Simple stuff really.

Thanks Simon, Although Mr. Bolts general objections are well known, the specifics have always seemed a bit murky. Often he argues that here is no global warming, but now I gather he also argues that even if there was global warming – that CO2 emmissions arent the reason.

Rex, he disagrees that Climate Change is due to the actions of humans, it quite simple and he is 100% consistant on this matter. We know that Climate change occurs, what we dont know, and what we cant prove, is that Humans are the cause of it. This is Andrew’s view.

Bolt is arguing against point 1. His many articles have pointed out how the earth hasn’t actually warmed since 1998, and that last year the climate cooled dramatically, down to levels pre 1960. Based on this, he says he’s not convinced that global warming is happening. He wants to see more open debate and more rational decision making, rather than the green hysteria we see. He wants to make sure that before we spend billions on reducing carbon emissions, we’re absolutely sure they’re the cause of the problem, and that there genuinely is a problem to fix.

I’m pretty sure Bolt isn’t arguing point 2. CO2 does trap heat, though the amount to which CO2 is responsible for trapping heat is less that 1/4 of one percent. In other words, doubling the amount of C02 in the air makes an insignificant diffence to climate. This may not be his position, but it’s what i’ve read from various sources.

The major difference I see between Bolt and Lovelock is one is a rational, realist who uses his brain, the other does not.