Jara

So that's a no?

It's kind of grey, with a touch of white, on my computer.

Pro, the professional bodies that I know are mostly funded by the subscriptions of their members. Why on earth would governments pay organisations to peddle false information? What is their motive? I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't make sense. What are you suggesting, that there's some giant conspiracy involving all the governments and all the professional science organisations in the world? Re your last comment, alas, you're probably right. I haven't done a huge amount of original research (like - none) on climate science. Nor have I done any research on the biosynthesis of the brain, the expulsion of magnetic flux fluids in superconductivity or the role of spin in Schrodinger's equation. I am pathetic, a left-wing parrot. I have vast gaps in my knowledge. But the thing is, where I have those gaps, I tend to trust the science. It does have a way of measuring, assessing and validating things until an approximation of the truth emerges. And, when it's proved wrong, it admits it. This is why we can trust things like - oh, I don't know - aeroplanes, computers, vaccination. This is why, when my doctor tells me my cholesterol is high (it isn't, you'll be relieved to know) I don't nip out and get a second opinion from the bus driver on the way home. So, back to my original question ( and let's be fair - I went to great lengths to try and answer yours - I know, I know, I failed miserably, but I did my best, so maybe you could do the same) Is there a single, professionally recognised scientific organisation in the world - anywhere! The Albanian Alchemists? The Burkina Faso Headshrinkers? - that supports your views? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Thank for the response, Pro, but you must have misread my question. I asked (quite genuinely- I know you've read more widely on this than I have) if there were any credible scientific organisations that support your views on climate change and the only one you could come up with was the Heartland Institute? Pleeeezzze... They are not a scientific organisation's cake-hole. They are a rabidly right-wing American think-tank funded by a bunch of self-serving billionaires whose most significant entry into public policy to date has been working with Phillip Morris to question the link between smoking and cancer. I tend to trust the science on most things - when I go to the doctor, when I step onto an aeroplane, when I look at the weather chart. That's why, even though I'm progressive, I don't trust things like homeopathy, anti-vaccination, etc... So I'll ask the question more clearly: is there a single, professional scientific organisation anywhere that supports your view on climate change?

Sorry Pro, but, again, I don't get it. You're telling me that the fact that something is only .041% of a larger body means that it couldn't have a significant effect upon the latter? So if a taipan bites you, you'd say, Oh, not to worry, it's only point whatever of my body weight? That's about as cogent as Wrecker's analogy of the light shining in the bath. The organisations I mentioned above - the ones you seemed to dismiss because they were old news (like, a year old, sure) - they aren't just some riff-raff the cat dragged in. They are absolute leaders in their field - the one I quoted, for example, the American Chemical Society - they don't come any bigger, better or more respected, both in industry and academia. And there were many others - the Meteorological Society, the Geophysical Union, the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics. They all believe global warming is serious, worsening and man-made. Could I ask you a question(I'm serious here - you've obviously read a lot more than I have)? I just pulled that letter off the web. Are there any serious scientific organisations - and I mean serious - joined by academic leaders, respected by their profession, and not just stooges funded by some oil company or Saudi Arabia - that support your views? Another question - (I've taken the time to answer yours) - have you ever actually tried to discuss your opinions with scientists? Have you raised those questions with professionals, rather than semi-literate, unqualified no-hopers like me? If not, why not?

The article I quoted gives the current figure of .041%. The article also says it was 180-280 ppm during glaciations, rising to 400 ppm since the Industrial Revolution (i.e. almost doubled in a couple of hundred years, so presumably the extra 120-220 ppm has been added by human activity).

Over the past 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased to over 400 parts per million and continues to increase, causing the phenomenon of global warming. Isn't the answer to both questions there? Ranging from 180 ppm during glaciations to 280 ppm in interglacial periods, increasing to 400 ppm and rising since the Industrial Revolution, leading to global warming?

Uh, god, Pro - are you going to keep me googling all Christmas? Per-leeze, I've got better things to do. Like you, I'm unqualified in the field, and have to rely on Professor Wikipedia, who tells me the following (from the same article) : Current concentration[edit] See also: Global warming, Climate change, Atmospheric methane, Holocene climate, and Quaternary climate CO2 concentrations over the last 400,000 years Over the past 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased to over 400 parts per million and continues to increase, causing the phenomenon of global warming.[10] The daily average concentration of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory first exceeded 400 ppm on 10 May 2013[11][12]although this concentration had already been reached in the Arctic in June 2012.[13] It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) [14][15][16][17][18]which corresponds to approximately 3200 gigatons of CO2, containing approximately 870 gigatons of carbon. Each part per million by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere thus represents approximately 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon.[19] The global mean CO2 concentration is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2 ppm/year and accelerating.[14][20][21] There is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppm which is negatively correlated with the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. The Northern Hemisphere dominates the annual cycle of CO2 concentration because it has much greater land area and plant biomass than the Southern Hemisphere. Concentrations reach a peak in May as the Northern Hemisphere spring greenup begins, and decline to a minimum in October, near the end of the growing season.[21][22] Since global warming is attributed to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO2, scientists closely monitor atmospheric CO2 concentrations and their impact on the present-day biosphere. The National Geographic wrote that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is this high "for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history."[23] The current concentration may be the highest in the last 20 million years.[6]

By the way, Pro, I'm curious - do you have any qualifications in climate - or any other - science at all?

Wow. A genius. You can google. So can I. From Wikipedia's article on CO2 in the atmosphere: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions[edit] See also: radiative forcing, List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, and Global warming While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human (anthropogenic) activity.[75] There are 4 ways human activity, especially fossil fuel burning, is known to have caused the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last few centuries. 1) Various national statistics accounting for fossil fuel consumption, combined with knowledge of how much atmospheric CO2 is produced per unit of fossil fuel (e.g. liter of gasoline).[76] 2) By examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.[75] The burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling distinction between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration. 3) Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the world's population lives (and emissions originate from), compared to the southern hemisphere. This difference has increased as anthropogenic emissions have increased.[77] 4) Atmospheric O2 levels are decreasing in earth's atmosphere as it reacts with the carbon in fossil fuels to form CO2.[78] Burning fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC, equivalent to 33.5 gigatonnes of CO2 or about 4.3 ppm in earth's atmosphere) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 GtC in 1990.[79] In addition, land use change contributed 0.87 GtC in 2010, compared to 1.45 GtC in 1990.[79] In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[80][81][82] In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 GtC were released as CO2 to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2013 the figure was about 380 GtC.[83]

So you are right and the American Chemical Society is wrong?

I don't know how to answer your question about CO2/Ice ages, etc, and neither do you. These guys might, though. The American Chemical Society is overwhelmingly the most important professional body representing chemistry in the world. It is replete with Nobel prize winners, cutting edge researchers, brilliant scientists. It doesn't just represent academia or government: it also represents hard-nosed businesses working in the industry. Here is a quote from its mission statement: The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Chemistry is at the heart of understanding the climate system and integral to addressing the development and deployment of new emission reduction technologies and clean energy alternatives. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity. Unmitigated climate change will lead to increases in extreme weather events and will cause significant sea level rise, causing property damage and population displacement. It also will continue to degrade ecosystems and natural resources, affecting food and water availability and human health, further burdening economies and societies. Continued uncontrolled GHG emissions will accelerate and compound the effects and risks of climate change well into the future.

Not melodramatic - dramatic. How do I "know"? Uh...(eyes roll) how am I supposed to answer that? How do we know anything? How do I know I'm not a butterfly's dream? How do you know I exist? Some things you just have to take for granted. Anyway, if you seriously want to argue it, here's a random choice from the list of organisations. The American Chemical Society. Read about it yourself. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/aboutacs.html This is not just the largest organisation in the field of chemistry, it is the largest scientific organisation in the world (158,000 members). It exists to support scientific endeavour in the field of chemistry. It leads research, publishes academic journals, sponsors the profession's major conferences. Its board members are among the most distinguished chemistry professionals in the world. It is non-partisan: it's mission is to help bring about a better world by the advancement of chemistry. Is that "cream" enough for you? If these guys agree that global warming is real and man-made, surely you (and maybe even Pro) could at least think there is the tiniest, teeny-weeniest little chance that they know what they are talking about?

Very objective reply. Scientists who believe in global warming are "funding-addicted" (who isn't, by the way?) Those who don't are "reputable." The organisations quoted in that article represent the cream of American science. Ignore them at your (and our grandkids') peril.

here's an early Christmas present for the deniers: https://www.aaas.org/news/intersocietyclimateletter2016 Thirty one of America's leading scientific organisations confirming their fear that global warming is real, dangerous and human-induced.

No point my responding to Pro, as he's got me on ignore, but for the rest of you, but Pro's got it mainly wrong, as usual. Ehrlich isn't a climate expert, and never described himself as such - Pro's just looking for any excuse to bag climate scientists in the hope of undermining their credibility. Ehrlich is a biologist, mainly known for his warnings about overpopulation. He clearly got the timing wrong - I suspect mainly because of the green revolution - but long-term, I fear he's right - as Daisy was saying a day or two ago, overpopulation scares the crap out of most sensible people. Surely there's a limit to how long agriculture can keep feeding an exploding population? Even in our own green, wealthy state, it's scary to see the way the expanding suburbs are swallowing up fertile farming land. 150,000 people coming here every year. Jeez...

Well, I did, but I thought I was agreeing with you (it is the season of good cheer - sorry if i wasn't clear -

Yes, but looking at tonight's news, globalisation seems to include the spread of nuclear weapons from a North Korea desperate for cash - that'll end well.

I'm with you there, Daisy - population growth scares the bejesus out of me - especially when I walk down Swanston Street, it feels like most of them are moving here. No planning, no infrastructure, dog eat dog for the jobs, property development the only industry. I sometimes think - none of us really knows how climate change will affect us, but imagine what it will be like in fifty years and the environment really is collapsing and our population is fifty million? Chaos.

This piece was written by a fellow called Jim Steele, a noted climate denier who, from what I can see of his blog, has no qualifications whatsoever in climate science (not that there's anything wrong with that, I suppose - he's a high school science teacher, so I'm sure he knows more about it than me - and to be fair, Tim Flannery isn't a climate scientist either)

Hey Wrecker - sorry for slow reply - been on the run - always happy to hear from you What I like about Scorcher is that is run by professional Australian climate scientists (connected to the Uni of NSW) with no vested interests that I can see. I've found them happy to answer questions, a service I've used when doing research for various things I've written. In the Useful Links section at the end there's a selection of references and articles, ranging from the academic to the popular, you can access if you want to. Here's one of latter, from the Skeptical Science website: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming

No need to rely upon propaganda to inform your decisions. Just look at the science. One site I find useful is called Scorcher. Despite the emotive name, it's run by a highly qualified, experienced climate scientist called Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick. Clearly demonstrates how the world is heating up and how this impacts upon marine ecosystems (actually she also lists her email - at Sarahinscience- if any of you deniers want to give her your thoughts - I'm sure she'd love to hear from old Pro as he flounders around in his glass-bottomed boat)

No doubt if they tell you it's in bad shape you'll scrounge around and find some half-qualified dim-witted pseudo-scientist in the pay of the fossil fuel industry to assure you everything's rosy.

Dieter I take your point - I did a bit more reading - (must be 20 years since I read Goldhagen) I don't know about his book being "totally wrong" - controversial is the best I'd say about it. Grapeviney made some good points. Again, many years since I read it, and I don't remember the name or author, but a book about secret recordings made of German senior officers in a POW camp remains the most chilling thing I've ever read about the casual attitude of so many Germans to the slaughter of innocents. I should mention that my own views on German complicity weren't based solely upon one or two books. My father in law was an artist who fled Germany in the 1930s, driven by his horror at the rise of Fascism and Anti-Semitism and who remained very cynical about the country of his birth. I don't believe he was surprised by the Holocaust - he did say to me once, something along the lines of "It takes a lot of criminals to murder six million people".

Daisy - hmmm - I'm just shooting from the hip here - haven't really thought this through - but I'd have thought there's some truth in the claim that the holocaust was inspired by Christianity. Jews had been persecuted by Christians for hundreds of years. Luther was a famous anti-semite, was he not? What was the Jew's 'crime'? That they practised a religion other than Christianity. Surely dogmatic Christianity was laying the groundwork for the persecution of the Jews for hundreds of years, a process which reached its apotheosis in the 1940s? Of course I realise that there were decent people of every religion who were humane towards the persecuted, often at the cost of their own lives - Bonhoeffer, for example - but overall, the Church (like Dieter's Wermacht chaplains) did virtually nothing to halt the Holocaust. I remember reading a very convincing book - years ago - I think the author's name was Goldhagen - who demonstrated that the overall German population, and its institutions, including the Church, were complicit in the genocide. I was shocked by his accounts of the massacres in Poland and the Ukraine - carried out not just by SS, but often by regular soldiers. Maybe the perpetrators weren't doing it "in the name of" Christianity, but I suspect in some ways they were inspired by it - if nothing else, their religion taught them that those who followed other faiths were damned, inferior, cast into darkness - something which must have made killing them a lot easier.