The best antidote to this kind of scaremongering coincidentally appeared today as well:

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic

Once Glikson can answer the issues raised in this article I will consider taking him seriously. But like most alarmists he seeks to soft-pedal real issues of fraud and malfeasance. For instance, the point is not whether the IPCC underestimated or overestimated glacier melt: it is that they continued to use a date which they knew to be incorrect for over two years, because it had much more scare value. Glikson's graphs are only as good as the data going into them; and we have reason to believe that the data is very dodgy indeed. To the ever-growing list of inexplicable (and always upwards) temperature 'adjustments' in the US and Canada we can now add Auckland, Darwin and Mackay. Where next, I wonder?

Thank you Andrew, this started off quite well until that is, I got to the bit where you called me a “studiously ignorant climate change denier”.

I’ve just read on OLO, the article by R. Sean Randolph and another by Shann Turnbull. Both seemed informative and balanced and neither saw the need to abuse their readers.

There are four well documented types of human intelligence, IQ (academic quotient), EQ (emotional quotient), SQ (social quotient) and PQ (personality quotient). I can well imagine that you possess a high IQ. In the interests of your own balance, might I suggest you do some work on the other “three Q’s”

Quite why so many “scientists” feel the need to abuse non-scientists is beyond me, probably because I’m studiously ignorant. Nothing I suppose to do with the fact that it might be you that has failed to convince?

I would love to hear your response to Jon J’s excellent link.

spindoc,

You're a bit thin skinned aren't you? Where did he mention Spindoc?

There are far more of the type of nay sayers he's referring too than you.
I too get frustrated with the wantonly ignorant. Those that use Plimers book as holy writ yet won't countenance his being scientifically examined/critiqued. Ok for them to criticise but not in return.

There is at least one site I can point you to where the anti AGW element won't consider any other interpretation or literature unless it supports their thinking.

One respondent to me cited the the Danish pre conference suggestion as proof absolutism of a world government conspiracy!

Scientifically, there are issues with JonJ link. Some of the assumptions the author uses are dubious. He starts from known then jumps to unsupportable conclusion.

As we have discussed before if someone wants to rip a thesis down first they must understand the the theory in it's entirety including its science. Clearly the author doesn't. his question are based on a piece meal approach.

For a more detailed explanation ask the forum on Real climate and see what they say.

Spindoc

I saw this cartoon and immediately thought of you - your ears must really be on fire given your (real or imagined) high profile in the zeitgeist.

http://newmatilda.com/files/imagecache/cartoon_homepage/images/FKspindoctorate.jpg?

Ever noticed how much those favouring action on pollution and waste tend to use science, as exemplified in this article by Glikson than those who cast aspersions?

Lord Monckton anyone?

I have read the piece recommended by Jon J and consider it excellent and logical. Doug Hoffman does a very good job of showing just how complex the climate of the earth is, and how poorly we understand it. He makes a good case that CO2 is not much of an issue, and provides a good account of the feedback assumptions needed by IPCC to make a scary case for CO2.

I too would like to hear Andrew Glikson's responses and comments on that article. However, on past performances here at OLO, he has a pattern of putting up a scary piece, then running a mile, never turning up to answer questions or make comments in response to comments made.

It's very difficult to take Glikson seriously when his claims are based on belief rather than science. He wants you to believe that a correlation between CO2 and temperature means that the former drives the latter when (a) the evidence of ice cores suggests temperature leads CO2 by hundreds of years, (b) when temperature is clearly a determinant in CO2 absorption and (c) since 1958 when CO2 measurement began it would be drawing a long bow to claim a correlation between CO2 and temperature for anything but the 21 years 1977-1997.

What's more, Glikson's thesis is ultimately based on the output of climate models but table 2.11 of the WGI part of the IPCC's 2007 report shows that many climate forces are poorly understood. To anyone, except perhaps the studiously alarmist, this low level of knowledge is a very good reason to think that accurate climate models cannot be created.

Finally and again laughable, Glikson tells us that the PH of oceans declined between 1751 and 1994 by 0.075 (8.179 to 8.104). Oh really? Where did he get the 1751 figure from (and to 3 decimal places to boot) and does it pretend to be a global average when it is probably from the North Atlantic? Does the latter figure also pretend to be a global average and if so, how was it detrrmined? According to specialists in the field, the natural variance in pH in the oceans at any one time is around 0.3, perhaps even a little higher, and 0.075 is well within that.

Really I think Glikson should called "Andrew the Alarmist".