How important to you is balance in the climate change discussion?

Why are we obsessed with the science of climate change when it's already happening? Even the ostriches with their heads buried so deeply in the sand that they can't see what's happening. It's not just sea level theorising - it's bees and frog in danger of extinction and leaving gaps in our ecosystem.

Totally with you Anton. Gotta wonder what the sceptics are so scared of...

Hi there - I guess many would call me a sceptic, yet I don't see myself that way and attaching such a label is possibly one of the reasons that many people are not yet prepared to be engaged in the debate. Firstly the words 'Global warming' were thrown around for many years and when that could not gain traction someone came up with 'climate change'. Can climate change be denied? Obviously not because there have been many changes over all the year's of Earth's existence. Does science confirm 'climate change' - no it doesn't. My understanding is that the models cannot yet be applied to show the cause and effect relationship over the past 5 or 6 decades, but does this matter? In my opinion - no. The examples quoted in the article above in relation to businesses being proactive in looking for ways to reduce our impact on the environment and ecosystems is what is important. Of course we should be looking at ways that we can preserve this world for future generations - every single person can contribute and should be supported, no matter how small the contribution they make. Is balance in the discussion important - it is critical! Taking an 'I'm right - you are wrong approach' (from both sides of the debate) has alienated too much of the population from this important debate. If you have got this far into my thoughts, thanks for taking the time to read - I appreciate it.

I'm just annoyed that all the events are all 'sold out' :-(

Hey there Craig (and others),

If you're local and prepared to run the risk of not getting in, you can always show up at the BMW Edge for sessions in the hope that some late tickets are released on the door. We can't guarantee anything (of course) as the events are fully booked, but anyone game to try their luck is welcome to come along.
And if that doesn't appeal, the series in its entirety will be available online here within 24 hours of each session.

Paul, I definitely hear what you're saying about the limitations of an adversarial approach, but sometimes think we get bogged down in an unnecessarily oppositional mindset that gives equal air to less than equal perspectives. The need for personal contributions to find better ways to live, didn't seem to need to be countered by someone arguing for more selfish emissions approaches. Have you come across climate change discussion forums that you think are sufficiently open and respectful places for debate?

The pseudo-scientific retardation that is climate change denial is unbearable. Every day it becomes more difficult to humour the stupidity that sneaks into public debate under the guise of 'balance'. Seriously, you guys.

With the AGW hypothesis based mainly on the dubious "hockey stick" and GCMs that are fed debateable assumptions on cloud feedbacks, how can you seriously debate this "warming catastrophe" without some sceptical opinions?
Even the Royal Society is more honest than that.

Anton Forbes

As someone who lives on 60Ha of rainforest and wet sclerophyll with no domestic animals, close to suburbia, I have a fair idea of what is the main problem with our ecosystems and it has almost nothing to do with ACO2e.

Thanks for your input and we'd like to hear more, spangled drongo, but we're not interested in allowing abuse. So be kind to Anton and other commenters.

"Have you come across climate change discussion forums that you think are sufficiently open and respectful places for debate?" Steve McIntyre at www.climateaudit.org is interested in facts and good science. In spite of receiving heaps of abuse and obfuscation from Mann, Jones, realclimate et al, Steve remains polite and fact-focused. Several other sites such as Bishop Hill and the Pielkes are also concerned with evidence, facts, good science and good statistical techniques rather than aggravation. As am I, though I don't have a blog.

Faustino,

Not only that, McIntyre spoke almost defensively of Mann at the recent heartland meeting much to many sceptics surprise considering how shabbily Mann and the "hockey team" have treated him over the years.
The sceptics seem to be more interested in playing the ball rather than the man but here it seems those of the warming persuasion will play ball but only if there is no opposing team.

In case you missed it, the Mcintyre's Heartland Presentation with some commentary from the man himself. No sign of the ball but two teams may be present.

And hopefully you read all this at Quadrant too:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_rise_of_the_sceptics_fall_of_the_csiro/

The science really isn't settled.

You're absolutely right the science isn't settled. It never is. But the physics certainly is, leaving the scientists to work out the timing and severity of our human hubris.

As for any confusion about the terms global warming and climate change, it is precisely because global warming was getting traction that Frank Luntz told the Republicans to start saying climate change, which in turn has been embraced by all because it is the better term. Increased atmospheric moisture will result in bigger snowstorms - that's a result of climate change, but intuitively no one associates it with warming, even though it is related to atmospheric warming.

It doesn't matter which monicer we use, the important issue is that we need to change the meme that we as a species use to drive our development.

Richard,
Not much point in saying the physics is settled when no one fully understands the physics.
That's why we get so many various assumptions being fed into GCMs and so many varying "projections".
Scientists will argue forever about just what physics apply to any given situation and we still have a lot to learn about this present one.

"It doesn't matter which monicer we use, the important issue is that we need to change the meme that we as a species use to drive our development"

There are, no doubt, better ways and better understanding of the true "physics" involved will stop us making potentially catastrophic mistakes.
But it's a situation that requires plenty of good, honest, scientific scepticism.

Richard,

I understand that people on the Man Made Global Warming side of the argument like to give speeches and not debate, that is not how human civilisation works. If a man is to get up and say hes right, he must have evidence that it happened through observations or measurements. Computer models do not count when you cannot find the hot spot they're programmed to manipulate. From all my years of reading there is no evidence (except computer models, that are basically garbage in-garbage out devices) of AGW but scare campaigns touting doom and gloom like preachers at Hillsong. Religion at its finest. Time to be alarmed.

The most direct way of proving your right is to debate. Science is not a dictatorship, science is to question everything and prove your right by backing up a point with data. However I have not seen a person from the IPCC, Al Gores camp, NASA or other pro man made global warming person do this except cite WWF and Greenpeace references (whos methods are questioned by almost everyone) out of the IPCC reports. Why is this so?

I want to see a debate where the Alarmists can be alarmed, and the skeptics can explain that the man made global warming theory was only invented recently (last 30 years) and that there was a better theory before it and the skeptics keep pointing to it as the true model of how climate works... and guess what, there are graphs and tables of data that created the theory - from direct evidence!!! Why isnt this theory explained along side man made global warming and let the mountains of evidence and data speak for itself.