Thank you. This is one of the clearest, brief explanations explanations of the science I have found. It should be widely shared.

Sorry Mike, I don't agree with your argument. You clearly are hooked onto the IPCC report which is increasingly being shown to be flawed.

I thought that it would be 5 years before this whole business of global warming would be behind us. It now looks like that will happen much sooner.

Mike "they offer no supporting evidence, though in an effort to “prove” their view"

"they" don't need to, and if you or anyone else claims something (absurd or not), you need to prove it, it's not up to anyone to disprove. That's how science works.

Anything else would be irrational ..

Next you'll be claiming the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting due to AGW.

We're coming out of an ice age, it's a long term thing, regardless of the attraction to do something now and try to change the climate, and for some reason you think it can be done in a few short years, that would be irrational.

You can't stop tectonic plate movement, climate or progress, to think you can is irrational.

Loved the article. Wish I could answer each point but I only have 350 words to reply. So let's start with the summary which sums up your article.

You said:
The vast majority of people, ...... accepts the scientific explanation for global warming.

My reply
At one point in our history most people thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the world. It did not make it true.

Please use scentific langauge to describe a scientific explanation.
Science is not a democracy. We don't vote on what is true or not.

Stephen

Mike,
Dear o dear. You start by claiming it is FACT that CO2 is the cause of global warming and, in the third last paragraph, you acknowledge that there is debate about the role of CO2. I have yet to see it as undisputed fact.

You also assert, without evidence, that human activity is responsible. Again that has not been proven.

I am no scientist, but when these two things are proven I am sure we will hear about it. Then I will take steps to counter it. In the meantime business as usual.

I wouldn’t know how many people accept “…accept(s) the scientific explanation for global warming. It would be very hard to ascertain this with the number of people in the world, and we only hear from those who can be bothered to say they do accept what (some) scientists say and those who do not believe what (some) scientists say. I do know that many people do not accept the CO2 theory, and neither do many scientists. What about the REAL majority of people who do not express an opinion?

The fact is, nobody, not even Mike Pope, can say that the majority of people accept the man-made theory of global warming. And, since the Copenhagen fiasco, it seems that fewer people than ever are even interested any more. (See Benny Peiser, OLO, Jan. 24th.)

It is noticed that Mike Pope has thrown in a few more gases, hitherto unmentioned, to keep the scare going. There also now seems to be some confusion on whether it is the amount of CO2 in the air, or but “the speed with which it changes.” It gets more confusing the more the alarmists try to convince us. One wonders if we will ever get the truth from these people. They might know what it is, but they sure as hell haven’t shared it with us; and that’s the problem, and that’s why they have failed.

Even the ‘great’ Monbiot has admitted that they have lost the argument (‘The Australia, 24th. January).

“A further cause for concern (for the alarmists) is that land in the northern hemisphere which has been frozen for millennia will thaw due to global warming.” This seems to be rather a joke, considering that the northern hemisphere is currently enduring temperatures of 45 degrees below, and normal movement is almost impossible because of snow. Tell the relatives of those who have frozen to death in their own homes that they died of global warming!

........

Yes. “Arguing against the irrational is difficult, particularly when its proponents either fail or refuse to offer a shred of cogent evidence to support their position - primarily because they have no evidence” is true, as Mike Pope claims. The problem is, though, that it is Mike Pope and the alarmists and confidence tricksters who are on the wrong side of rationality. And, whether or not the majority of people agree with the alarmists, ‘might (still) doesn’t make right’

Mike puts forward an argument against irrationality, while being on the side of the irrational.

Ian Plimer is a scientist, of impeccable professional background. His science is vastly superior to the pretend science of the warmists.

Science has not shown to what extent human activity contributes to global warming, and it is likely that it is insignificant. During the present period of increased human activity, and increased proportion of CO2, the globe has been cooling.

There is some dispute about this from the IPCC and its “hide the decline” crew at East Anglia, but there are still reputable sources, like the lead scientist on sattelite temperature, Roy Spencer.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

The IPCC, a political organisation aimed at setting up a swindle based on global warming, says it is “very likely” that human activity causes global warming. This is code for “there is no scientific proof, and despite spending billions on scientific research, we have found none.”

“Very likely” was the IPCC’s assessment of the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers. This was based on a phone call to someone who knew little about glaciers, but told them what they wanted to hear.

If you wish to be rational Mike, you had better change to a scientific basis, and dump the pretend science of the IPCC, and dissemblers like Hadley.

Read Ian Plimer’s book. You might then stop talking the nonsense you do, about CO2

Every nation in the world does not support this scam, and the majority of people, if it is vast, is becoming less vast every day, as the truth seeps out, and the lies of the IPCC are exposed. Gore has a cheer squad now, at any public appearance, which chants “Liar” and “Fraud”. He cancelled his address at Copenhagen.

The Czech Republic tells its citizens the truth, and 89% of them believe that global warming is baseless. The President Vaclav Klaus, says he has approached many world leaders to join him in telling the truth, and has been uniformly rebuffed. He was refused an invitation to Copenhagen, where he wished to give an address.

It really is an insult to have articles by this bloke continually produced on here.

Anyone who can say that "CO2 is the most common of the greenhouse gasses" has no place pushing his ideas here.

If he can't be bothered doing enough studdy to get even the basics right, surely we should be spared his rubish, particularly when he calls us, irrational.

Mike, <<The vast majority of people, including every national government in the world, accepts the scientific explanation for global warming. >>

You’re absolutely right of course, but it’s obvious you’ve been away for the past few months, so we’ll give you a bit of an update on what happened during your absence, that way you won’t look so, you know, silly.

Just before Copenhagen an insider at the CRU leaked some reports, data and emails. You and I know that these revelations mean nothing of course, however, some people feel, quite irrationally, that these damage the creditability of some of the things we’ve been telling the public. You know, like Consensus, Peer Review, Impeachable Professionals, Procedural Compliance, Good Data, Certified Computer Programs and State of the Art Modeling.

It’s almost as if people somehow “expect” the IPCC and its lead authors to exercise some sort of accuracy, due diligence and attention to detail. Goodness knows why, given that the world has already spent $74 Billion in response to IPCC predictions in the last ten years and we fully understand that we will have to cough up between $200m and $400m per annum just to keep the show on the road.

Anyway, look, just don’t mention the IPCC, OK. There are plenty of good things out there like Keith Briffa’s tree ring proxies, the hockey stick and the glacial melt in the Himalaya’s.

Anyway, Copenhagen was a roaring success, every “national government in the world”, supported by their own “vast majority of people” demonstrated total commitment and “signed off” on nothing.

There were a few of what Al Gore might describe as “blips”. The EU carbon trading price dropped about 60% to $18.50 and renewable energy certificates fell from $50 to $30. Look, it’s not a problem; don’t worry yourself, all it means is that there is declining revenue for alternate energy projects.

Fortunately, China, India, the US and Russia got right behind us by committing to absolutely nothing, adding the encouraging words, “go take a long walk on a short pier”.

Keep it going but don’t mention the IPCC. OK?

Mike Pope wrote:-

“Given time, animal and other life forms are often able to adapt to warmer or cooler conditions but when there is relatively rapid movement in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere outside the range of say 300-450ppm, adaption is difficult or impossible.”

Now I do not claim to understand the philosophy behind your phrase-“a demonstrated scientific fact.” However it would be nice to know your evidence that plants and/or animals can not adapt or only adapt with difficulty to CO2 outside your arbitrary stated range.

By the way is it not an established scientific fact that the radiative effects of CO2, CH4, water vapour etc are logarithmic and NOT linear in respect to concentration. Thus a change from 300-350 ppm would have a greater increment of effect then the change from 400-450 ppm.

One other thing the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm is under attack from many sections of the community. This must inevitably excites a response from proponents of the theory. I wait with great intellectual anticipation the attempts of the AGW supports to defend the indefensible

Time will tell. In the meantime let us not wreck the economy by imposing nonsolutions such as a carbon tax. Only the left wing could dream up a tax on the fourth most common element in the universe.

Yes the vast majority of nations once believed that the earth was flat and it was blasphemous to believe otherwise.The majority concensous is not always right.Remember to two Aussies who went against all coventional rationality and found that stomach ulsers are caused by a bacterial infection.

The science community is divided however it is the pop media who are pushing one side of the argument for economic gain in both carbon taxes and derivatives traded on the share market.

His explanation is clear and simple but unfortunately incorrect. He fails to list H20 as the major greenhouse gas, in fact he fails to list it as a greenhouse gas at all.

He says: "Too little, less than about 330 parts per million (ppm) and too little solar energy is trapped in the atmosphere. The surface of the planet becomes too cold for homo sapiens and the life forms on which they depend to survive."

Well then how did humans survive in 1700's when the atmospheric CO2 was about 280ppm.??

Not clear and simple but simplistic and facile. This man is seemingly unaware of the complexities involved in what contributes to changes in climate and he has a lot of 'facts' wrong.

I have to take issue with Boethius; This is not a tax on the 4th most common element it is more a tax on the air we breathe. This perfectly compliments the labour party taxes on water. Roll on the election and yes lets have it on AGW taxation

well well finally the UN after being caught making an apology after '"poorly substantiated" and resulted from a lapse in standards'

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/un-says-sorry-for-glacier-error/story-e6frg6xf-1225822334349

don't forget guys that the science is settled and all the smart people agree.

Mike Pope writes that the less rational are convinced that by simply denying the scientific basis for AGW, "that denial is, by itself, proof of their claim".

Judging by the comments made so far, on that point at least, he may be right.

On one side of the fence, compelling science has, quite rightly to be put forward but on the other side, no such need. One simply has to say "No" and that puts an end to the matter.

A meaningful debat, do you think?

For a rational, well considered and balanced argument, why you need look no further than the Chris Monckton contribution at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9906

There is no way that the believers in anthropogenic global warming on the one hand and the climate sceptics on the other will ever affect a compromise. Now if this was just a scientific dispute it would be of little consequence to the non protagonists, if we had to wait say 100 years for a defining experiment.

However the climate debate is not just science it is also political. The politicians not scientists have become the leading players. Science may wait for its evidence, politicians can not. Politicians want to act in the immediate future, pass bills and make laws.

There is a solution to the political problem and that is by an enquiry. The enquiry needs the powers and prestige of a Royal commission. That way witnesses can be tested by cross exanimation while under oath.

Of course, a royal commission will not settle the scientific component. However practically, the evidence presented by both sides can be weighed. A substantial assessment of the evidence will then be available to the politicians. I am aware that the findings of a commission are not binding on Parliament.

The advantage of this approach is that the evidence for and against will be assessed and evaluated in the same document by an impartial umpire.

Sceptics and others

Leo Lane, >"Ian Plimer is a scientist, of impeccable professional background. His science is vastly superior to the pretend science of the warmists."<
Perhaps you should read the following
"Ian Rutherford Plimer (born February 12, 1946) is an Australian geologist, academic (*was* # my comment) and businessman.

"Plimer is a director of three Australian mining companies: Ivanhoe, CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals."
Plimer is listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs, a free market think tank.

Plimer A scientist? objectivity ??
He has been associated with mining all his life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

As for the scientific credibility of his book...
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf
From real scientists. 300+ errors.
And you lot cane Others for 1 or two errors.

NB Plimer is a Geologist and thinks in terms of eons, eras timescales and knows squat about the multiple disciplines that make up the consensus.His is a retrospective science? not a predictive one.
He has no answers (consequences) for the following except to say it's happened before.

Antigreen, I challenge sceptics to explain the consequences of this.
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=626&gid=42&index=0
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
http://asiasociety.org/onthinnerice check out "Green China option" while there.
Some 80 US glaciers gone in the 20th century 70 more going.
Andean, African and PNG are all decreasing at an unrepairable rate... the snow isn't replacing as fast as it melts.
Then refer to the results from satellite "G.R.A.C.E." that shows ground water is drying and hydrological cycles are changing. shows lessening depths of Antarctic/Arctic ice.
All this took 10000's of years to Accumulate and it disappearing at an unprecedented rate.
It doesn't take rocket science to see the writing on the wall
and then tell me we shouldn't be doing something

Agnostic at Mittagong, Monckton is classics trained and a journo. No science training or understanding at all and totally his utterances are self serving

Where were all you wise and hardened sceptics during the CFC/Ozone layer debate a few decades ago?

Despite all the research, there is little evidence that we have turned the situation around and there may not be for some time yet.
Maybe sunscreen alone will save us so it doesn't matter anymore.

Why were some people so willing to accept one circumstance but are so rabidly against the other when the science is so similar and they are inter-related?

Gee, I wonder if the comparative influence of the Oil Lobby as compared to the Freon industry may have something to do with it?

Then again, many of those same people who claim the Moon landing was a hoax also believe that Professional Wrestling is real, and some who believe unproven superstition as fact also demand evidence from others who believe otherwise.

Another ad hominem attack from Examinator, nothing unusual about thisfrom the alarmists. Overall, however, they seem to be becoming more shrill as mother Earth resolutely refuses to obey the directives of their beloved computer models. Playstation science!

Examinator.

You made the same observations regarding glaciers in the comments following the article “No fraud in hacked climate emails.” I posted a reply on 19 January to which you failed to respond.

The onus is on you to explain why the only important cause for the advance and/or retreat in glaciers is atmospheric CO2?

You must also explain why precipitation at the head of a glacier is not a significant factor? .

As I suggested in my posting on the current article, there is a case for a Royal commission to cross examine the experts on these matters. I do not claim expertise in climate science. However as a concerned member of the public I suspect a giant scam based on junk (if not fraudulent) science. The suggestion is that several of the public figures engaged in the scam stand to make a lot of money out of carbon trading etc.

examinator "Antigreen, I challenge sceptics to explain the consequences of this" .. usual "believosphere data dribble", I reject your cherry picked data and say this, what will happen will be the world just keeps turning, cities and governments will rise and fall, babies will be born and old people will die. Everything else, we'll adapt, always have always will, regardless of what shrill doom sayers and false prophets say.

People will continue to do as they please regardless of fools shouting they must not, that's life, get used to it.

All your arguments come down to trying to pick narrow little scenarios then demanding they be answered to your liking. Irrational at best.

wobbles, you can be skeptical about some things and not others, you can actually be - wait for it, skeptical about AGW but not ozone holes! I know that's a shock, but there's more, you can be skeptical about a politician's or scientist's motives, but not your own doctors! I know I know, it's a revelation!

Being skeptical, does not mean disagreement with everything, just as the opposite is also not true, that if you are not skeptical about AGW, you are not skeptical about anything at all.

Do you seriously think all the skeptics about AGW are all in the pay of Big Oil or the freon lobby, that would be .. irrational.

Have fun fuming over your Climate Scientology over the weekend.

Anti-green (12.50)

Well the House of Representatives Committee on Climate Change did hold an enquiry. Its report was completed, recently published and can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ccwea/coastalzone/report.htm You might find it makes interesting reading, particularly Chapter 2.

Frankly your contributions leave me with the impression that nothing would change your mind, which is a pity and I hope I am wrong. I try to keep an op[en mind and would be willing to adopt a far more sceptical, even a denialist position if only those who reject the scientific explanation could come up with a convincing, coherent explanation for global warming.

So far they have not. Their only "contribution" has been to deny what science tells us is the most credible explanation, an explanation which is supported by a considerable body of empirical evidence. Dismissing it by simply saying "there us no AGW, no climate change and no scientific explanation because it is not happening" is not good enough.

Amicus,You repeat the mantra and peddle the deception of big oil etc wanting to sell more fossil fuels without restrictions.Big oil want the carbon taxes and derivatives because they can make more money on less production.They will not pay the carbon taxes,we will and they will have the capital to trade in carbon derivatives,further driving up the price of their fuels.It is a win,win for big oil.

Amicus,

If nine Doctors diagnosed your ill-health based on widespread and independent analysis but you chose to listen to the tenth one who disagreed then would that be irrational too - or are you claiming it's the motives and not the science that's behind it all?

I suppose it would come down to some sort of risk management and how much you valued your own well-being.

I think it's actually the skeptics who are publicly crying "conspiracy" more than the others.

The truth seems to carry no weight in this discussion. It has been obvious from the start that the global warming hypothesis was based upon untruths, and sustained by a campaign of lies, particularly the “consensus’ and “thousands of scientists agree” assertions.

We now have ample proof of the dishonesty of the clique of scientists at East Anglia who have fraudulently manipulated data, and warmists still cannot give up the rearguard action.

Have you wondered why, despite their fraudulent methods, the Climategate scientists are able to assert that their results in temperature align with sources like NOOA and NASA?

The sources of unmanipulated data seem to be limited to the isolated and rare honest source like Spencer and Christie.

NASA and NOOA no sooner publish data than they are revising it, and the revision always makes the globe warmer, to the extent that their spurious results now show some years since 1998 as hotter than 1998.

The explanation is quite simple. They are fraudulent to the same extent as the Hadley gang. Hard to believe, when we know the extent of the Hadley scam, where we know that they have even gone to the extent of leaving out 60% of the Russian data, because it showed cooling, and leaving in the 40% which showed some warming.

A report of the depredations of NOOA and NASA is in course of completion.

A sample of what to expect is provided by Willis Eschenbach, who looked at the treatment of the raw data from NOOA in respect of Darwin, which was “homogenised” before publication:

“Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celsius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celsius per century.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-somethings-rotten-in-denmark-and-east-anglia-asheville-and-new-york-city-pjm-exclusive/3/

Whether this will penetrate the postmodern world of the warmeciles remains to be seen. They might continue to ask stupid questions of us, like, “What would change your mind.”

There are some great posts on this thread.

Spindoc’s : http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9947#160369 is a real pearl – five star work.

Leo Lanes : http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9947#160487 is a pearler too.

And then there’s Examinator posts–not too bad, over all.
Though his real gem was his recent post on another thread.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9944#160299
which had this memorable line: “The deniers may well win the battle but we'll lose the war”

What prescience! [ ROFL ]

Actually come to think of it, most of Examinators posts are steeped in pre-science

wobbles, your circular argument and irrational grasping at straws leaves me ROFL. Why on earth would you go to nine doctors, unless you were skeptical of the first's response - just too silly for words. You try to twist what I am saying and you know it.

Risk management I understand, but it does not involve doing stupid things because the majority of people insist on it - like someone standing on the ledge of a building and the crowd calling them to jump - the people who are all in agreement on something may not have YOUR best interests at heart. Group think is not always benevolent.

Arjay, what is with this irrational obsession with Big Oil? This is very much like the US Democrats all recently believing that the opposition to their big plans was fabricated, paid for by insurance companies or oil companies or some other reprehensible profit-motivated boogeyman they'd conjured up.

They overestimated their mandate and underestimated the electorate.

AGW believers are of a similar delusion, they tend to think any opposition is only funded by big oil, or some other big conspiracy funding source - since it is "irrational" in your opinions to be skeptical. So you insist that skeptics must be consistent and skeptical about everything, which is of course - irrational.

Face it, the tide is turning and people are now questioning because of the irrational outbursts of PM Rudd and others, you folks do yourselves so much damage by your flaming and irrational outbursts, but please don't stop.

Same for you Q&A, you end off another thread asking who is funding Monckton's visit, when you know perfectly well how easy it is to find out, but you leave the question there alluding to evil conspiracies (by the Big Oil companies oooooooh). More scaring the gullible types with irrational paranoid delusions.

Though you have been as usual clever and vague enough to leave your well oiled wiggle room.

There seems consensus climate change in now about politics.

To that end a quick persual of US media, yep both left 'mainstream' and 'fair and balanced' Fox, post Massachusetts and Obama's 'Brownout' , shows zero comment, or reporting on the issue. Given the extent of the electorate's rejection of Obama's much vaunted change, his proposals to fix healthcare, his economic mismanagement and the now obvious demand Obama focus on the US economy, jobs and the US economic future I think we'll see the US totally ignore any action on climate change.

To Obama the disasters of climategate, glaciergate and the UN climate expertise coupled with the humilitation by China India and Brazil let him off the hook and are a blessing... albiet in disguise.

In the current US political scene support for 'climate change' action would be suicidal ... politically.

Now add the Europeans recent dismal performance that revealled their complete impotence ... well climate change activitism is as dead as the bird in a Kentucky Fried in most parts of the world.

Kevvy's insistence on a carbon trading scheme here will make him a laughingstock right across the world. I can't wait to see he and Wong re-present their legislation to the Senate. They'll be shredded quicker and more completely than a food parcel in Haiti.

I'm looking at the Aussie media at the moment. There is nothing written or spoken about climate change, boatpeople, labor relations Japanese Whaling, rising petrol prices, rising grocery prices, the Nth Terr. Intervention, rising homelessness, rising interest rates... or expected rising un/under employment given the latest rise in both unemployment and non participation in the US ... in Dec.

Do the editors and commentators in Aus seriously think we are not interested or that we shouldn't think about those issues. Aussie media is a joke ... feeding sport and populist crap about Australia Day and Aussies in Afghanistan.

Reading the US media things are robust and interesting and they are serving it right up to the idiots in control of the Democrats and Obama. Great fun to see them all squirming.

To quote Bob Dylan in Forever Young

'The winds of change are chill'

Hah now how prophetic was that and I bet he knew a thing or too about climatic changes!

[Part 1]
To ‘Agnostic’ and others if opposition to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is evidence of a closed mind; then so be it. Mercifully it is not yet a crime to question the veracity of the IPCC.

Some observations from JR Dunn -American Thinker. Nov 29, 2009
1. A “glitch” in the NASA /GISS team lead by James Hansen has caused them to admit, that Steve McIntyre was correct, by a whisker the year 1934 was warmer then 1998.

2. Arctic ice melts and reforms regularly.

3. Polar bear numbers are increasing over last 40 years (estimates from 17-19,000 to the current number of 22-27,000).

4. What happened to the infamous Hocket stick Graph?

5. What about data manipulation as stated by Prof Phil Jones? [climategate]

6. What about denying data to other workers as Hansen, Jones etc have done from time to time?

7. What think you of the ethics in applying pressure to journal editors not to print articles critical of AGW? [climategate].

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…

Vincent Grey – [The Global Warming Scam April 2008- Lavoisier site].

Grey argues the impossibility of measuring the average temperature of the earth. There is no exact meaning according to Grey of Surface Air Temperature (SAT). Stevenson screens are placed about 5ft off the ground, there location is haphazard. Over time locations move, change or retain their names, may be surrounded by structures which cause a “heat island” and so on. Nor are recordings made according to a rigid protocol.

The number or weather stations world wide peaked in the Northern Hemisphere from about 6000 in 1950 to around 2500 in the year 2000. The Southern Hemisphere numbers follow the same trend, but are even fewer.

I suggest this is due to the superior accuracy of satellite measurements and radio balloons. This means we have at our disposal only about 30 years of reliable data- too small a time window to draw valid conclusions. IPCC bases its claims on the SAT measurements from the UK Hadley Centre. A flawed data set that extends back in time to 1850.

[Continued]

[Part 2]

A word about Lavoisier site, yes it is supported by the fossil fuel industry. If you claim this means it is biased in one direction. I will argue that environmental advocacy groups are even more strongly biased in the other direction.

It is also known that the funding for pro global warming research is orders of magnitude greater then that awarded to sceptical scientists.

An example of the flow of money:
“Billionaire George Soros, generally considered a “progressive,” seems to understand both politics and climate change. He put his money where is mouth is and pledged to donate 1 billion dollars to clean energy technology as part of an effort to combat climate change. He will form and fund a new climate policy initiative, with $10 million a year for 10 years.” Shelly T, on October 12th, 2009. [http://www.civilianism.com/futurism/?p=3119]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Some other matters.

1. The extreme variability in predicted sea level increases by various authorities; suggest to me, that the predictions are guesses only.

2. Measurement of Ocean temperature is now regarded as all important [see Carter et al response to Minister Wong]. The trouble is that reliable measurements from the Argos system have only been available since mid 2003.

3. Our best data from satellites and Argo says that both air and oceans have not warmed for at least 5 years. [David Evans 14 July 2009].

“As we know
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.”
………………..

“But there are also unknown unknowns
The ones we don’t know
WE don’t know.” [From Donald Rumsfeld].

A CLIMATE SCANDAL UPDATE:

Climate gate claimed that the Climate Research Unit at the University of Anglia manipulated data. It now seems that American data sets for Air Surface Temperature (AST) are equally suspect.

The organisations involved are:

NASA_GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NCDC National Climate Data Center.

Briefly although satellite temperatures have been available since 1978 most analysis of global temperature is still based on land measurement of “surface air temperature (SAT).

By 1990 NOAA had reduced its data set based on 6000 thermometers around the globe to 1500. In USA peak number was 1850 in 1963 as low as 136 in year 2007.

Stations at higher latitudes and or elevation were scraped from the data series in favour of more urban locales at lower latitude and elevation. [Obvious source of bias].

“What’s up with that (WUWT) editor Anthony Watts has calculated that by “adjustment of raw data” 0.5F or almost one half of the 1.2F so called warming is due to manipulation of raw data.

Question for the “true believers in global warming: Are you not a little offended by this blatant massage of data? Do you not feel that data has been hopelessly compromised by station drop out?

Or are you of the opinion it is too early to make a definitive conclusion on these issues?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

For an Australian contribution:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Smoking+Gun+at+Darwin+Zero

Horus,
I'll answer your question in the other thread in 19 hours. You'll understand my squeamishness about partaking in this, er ... little think tank Mr Pope's got buzzing along.
Thanks though for drawing my attention to the quote of the week from examinator: “The deniers may well win the battle but we'll lose the war”
Excellent, Examinator, very droll! To the victors the spoils eh! :-)

Thanks for the article Mike. Not that you will convince those that will accept any argument unscrutinised from the denialist voices and can't see a warming trend in graphs like <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/"> these</a>. But, yes, ultimately mainstream Australia will accept the considered views of people who actually study climate over people who consider a hot spike (eg 1998) in a multidecade warming trend proof of cooling. And who do so without mention of ENSO; they wouldn't want a well known natural variation to upset their arguments that it's all natural variation, thus there is no correcting for El Nino, which would make their apparent cooling disappear - and no intellectual honesty.

There seems to be a lot of credence given to JR Dunn in posts above.

From what I have seen he's just the US equivalent of Andrew Bolt - a non-scientist and one-time rabid Bush supporter who also claims that DDT had ELIMINATED (not reduced) Malaria in the entire Northern hemisphere.

Pretty significant claim? I bet India is relieved to hear that one.

So what's real the motive behind Climate Change? Is it just a simple scientific error or is there more to it?

Whatever the answer, I think you'll see it's not just the climate-changer devotees who are seeing conspiracies by Big Oil, it's actually the skeptics who are seeing them everywhere!

Runner,

Yep! "the smart people agree", and not with you.

Oh the humanity! ...Get used to it.

Do you see where the essential contrast lies?

You see, unlike Pascal's wager, this one has teeth.

I don't care about your imaginary god, one among hundreds if not thousands.

I *do* care about Fourier, who showed that increased Carbon Dioxide increased the trapping of radiant energy from sunlight.

*given* that there is more CO2, more methane, more NOx in the air than othewise, and, *given* that there is therefore more energy in the system than otherwise, it is *NOT AT ALL* clear that "she'll be right mate".

Yes, complex system, blah blah blah. Your no-modelling-whatsoever is not useful.

What's the worst?

Global warming real and no action - hmmmmm - bad. Really bad. Businesses bitch about retraining, let alone relocation, storm damage, disruption of shipping, etc. real problems need tax help. *your* tax. Spend early to avoid excessive costs later.

Global warming real and action - not as bad, merely expensive. Whew!

Global warming not real and action - expensive, like the iraq war, ordinary drought, ordinary floods, ordinary economic downturns. Therefore tolerable, plus advantage of increased energy independence, globally and locally. Not really tragic, except for vested interests, who can buy in anyway and make a nice profit thereby.

Global warming not real and no action. Business as usual. Not even the minor military advantage of decentralising energy source or site of generation. Big whoop. May as well have spent the money building duplicate schools (already got state schools) for church-aholics whose shallow doctrine can't withstand exposure to the profane for a few hours. Yup. that's worthwhile. I'd rather just spend the money on State schools. Fundies can indoctrinate their kiddies at home.

Your personal belief that this is "gods" domain is not meaningful. If you don't brush your teeth, "god" does not prevent your dental issues. *knowing* the behaviour of gas mixtures irradiated by sunlight means that it is now our problem. Catch up.

Rusty

The article is flawed. the whole world & governments agree on Global warming? It's a very flawed assumption. If you repeat something a lot you think people will start to believe it.

BULLS#!T. NO THEY DON'T.

It's a demonstrated fact that it's a schoolkids essay. Oh dear

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/31/2805918.htm