So a whole empire of government-funded technicians with a vested interest in more government programs, paid to find global warming, have by manipulating data sets unidirectionally *up*, found, global warming when the same manipulations down would find global cooling? So what?

So a wide variety of parasitic groups of many different states, with a vested interest in government junketing and redistribution from the productive class to their own benefit, all agree that more government junketing and redistribution is indicated. So what?

The proof that belief in policy action to address supposed catastrophic man-made global warming is irrational, is in the fact that the belief is immune against disproof: the same tedious refuted fallacies keep getting trotted out over and over and over again. Perhaps Michael Rowan would care to answer them?

The fact is, the so-called science is dodgy and bodgy, and suffers from a single international *non-scientific* trend of manipulating the data, destroying or hiding data sets or the algorithms used to analyse them, and blatant lying, to produce the desired results.

And again, the climate science is the least of the warmists' problems. Even if it were conceded, it does not and cannot establishing any justification of policy. The warmists' still haven't established that a rise in temperature of a few degrees spells ecological disaster - a complete furphy.

But the biggest fallacy of all is in the social, not the natural sciences. Every warmist appeal always talks in terms that "we" need to do something, as if mankind formed a single decision-making entity with unitary interest. This hides the conflict of interests, which is not between western governments on the one hand and non-western governments on the other, but between governments on the one hand, and their subjects the productive classes who must pay for their parasitic depredations on the other.

And no, Michael Rowan doesn't speak for everyone in the world, nor everyone who disagrees with him, nor everyone who would be robbed or killed by this 21st century re-birth of the idea of central planning of the economy.

How do you reconcile this article with the one that appeared in OLO on 26 November 2010 Tuvalu - the touchstone of global warming and rising sea level
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11282&page=1

A very succinct and concise summary Professor Rowan.

Will it open the eyes or unplug the ears of those that don't want to see or don't want to hear? No.

I do like references to the UK Met Office as an authority on climate. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, it has forecast mild winters with reduced snow and ice becoming a permanent feature. These have, of course, been the coldest, 'snowiest' and 'iciest' winters for decades with temperatures forecast to reach -26 C in parts of the UK in the next few days.

No doubt the riposte to this will be that weather isn't climate. Exactly! That's what realistic analysts of climate have been saying about the drought in Australia for the last decade. The IPCC computer projections continue not to represent the real climate. If, however, one were to look at the history of the world's climate since the end of the Little Ice Age, one would find today's weather patterns fitting neatly into the natural climatic variations experienced for the past 400 years or so.

no amount of evidence and embarassment for the alarmist seem to silence them. BOM has been proven wrong on so many accounts that they now rely on somewhere in the distance where they can't be held accountable. I am sure that 'new science' will make the astrology more accurate in the future. To think this fraudulent stuff will be used by the Gillard Government to hike electricity and gas prices. Victoria, England, France and America would be praying for more emissions to take them out of record snow conditions. The age of reason has long gone.

Dear Professor, as a qualified academic in the fields Education, Arts and Social Sciences what would you be able to tell us about AGW?

Your links, reports and opinions number less than 30 so you are clearly not making your case by quantity. Since you are not an expert in the field upon which you are commenting I cannot accept the case of quality.

That leaves you with some serious catching up to do. Should you be interested there are some 7,000 scientists in this field who have recently and publicly disagreed with you, 30% with PhD’s. There are also many sites with anything between 1,000 and 2,000 scientific papers that also disagree with you.

I don’t know if what you or your sources say is true or not, because like you I’m not qualified. So if you are interested in this subject, I will send you 10 contrary scientific conclusions each week and you can get your “scientists” to respond. Since this has never yet happened in this vexatious debate, we would be making significant progress.

You might want to ask yourself why any “well educated” person might need to proselytize