<< …the government's global warming challenge is not how it can fashion a more effective policy or even walk away from it. It is about how to change its substance and appearance. >>

Yes Graham. And that shouldn’t be hard. Many of the same things need to be done in order to address peak oil, land-clearing and the sustainability of our society as for anthropogenic global warming. These goals are more tangible than AGW. Well, peak oil and land-clearing certainly are. Sustainability is a little less tangible, but still moreso than AGW.

I think that Krudd’s… er I mean… our good PM, Kevin’s …great problem is his glaringly obvious contradiction between pushing for a big Australia while at the same time pushing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He just can’t be taken seriously with this almightily schizophrenic policy clash. If he could just see the merit in espousing the winding back of population growth rather than continuing with our highest ever growth rate, then he could make huge headway.

He’s apparently distanced himself somewhat from the target population of 35 million by 2050. Now if he could just see fit to knock the baby bonus on the head and reduce next year’s immigration intake by 20% or something, then he’d be on the right track.

He also needs to impress on the populace the significance of peak oil or rising oil prices and the urgent need to wean ourselves off of our utter dependence on oil for transport and the distribution of food, commodities, services, etc.

And he needs to talk up the need to prevent land-clearing and to recover some natural environment by way of letting regrowth re-establish. But he absolutely has to implement a compensation package here for those whose livelihoods are affected by this sort of thing.

So yes, with the right approach, he could sidestep the whole global warming thing and both better direct our national efforts towards protecting our future on a wider front than just climate change and much more effectively address climate change at the same time.

It doesn't matter if the CPRS gets up or not.It is ineffective and intended to be so.

Whether it is currently unfashionable to be concerned about climate change or other environmental issues is irrelevant.

Soon enough the slumbering monkeys are going to be slapped very hard in the face by the consequences of their complacency.

It will make no difference to the climate change issue and many others whether Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum get up at the next election.
What is certain is that the Tweedle Dumbers in the electorate will get what they deserve.

Too bad about the rest of us who can actually string 2 or more thoughts together to reach some sort of realistic conclusion.

People have short attention spans...they are bored with hearing about climate change. The pace of change is not an immediate threat, like economic downturns, employment etc, so it gets put on the backburner. That is human nature.

One look at the current sea-surface temperatures shows that while the USA and Europe have experienced colder than normal winters, the sea temperatures further north are up to 2.5 degrees above normal and the ice pack is tracking at equal to its low point of 2007. Given that the ice is predominantly one-year ice, it will be interesting to see what happens this summer. It is the sea temperatures and currents that drive warming and they continue to do so.

The issue is still there whether voters want to hear about it or not. Such is life.

Like many others, I feel that if the rest of the world is doing close to b*gger all, why should we tax everything to make 0.1% difference to the world.

The waste of resources caused by politicians advocating climate change is unbelievable. Over 46,000 politicians, spin doctors, lobbyists and other parasites would have run up a combined bill of many billions of dollars at Copenhagen, once the luxury hotel bills and other expenses are included. Far more would have been achieved for the third world if they had just been given the money.

I have been convinced for some time that the whole global warming wank was just a con to frighten western voters into giving enormous sums of money to the third world. Fortunately we have been saved at the last minute and it now looks as if the voters are waking up. Pity the people of poor Denmark, who are now paying for a massive network of windfarms by paying over four times what we pay for electricity.

In times like this, with a massive drop in the standard of living being required by all, people are demanding that governments be frugal. I am a staunch monarchist, but I would much prefer for the Queen, when she next visits, to walk out of the tourist section of the aircraft that brings her. As for ordinary politicians, I see no reason for them to be paid, or at the most no more than the dole.

Great moral challenges are for prosperous times. In times like this balancing the budget is more important.

Its amazing how all but the most determined alarmists have departed the OLO scene. Few remain to wave the dreary Global Warming flag. But they'll return with a new parade after the David Suzukis and Al Gores of this world dream up a new "issue" to bring the world to its knees.

But where did the catastrophe go? Why isn't the tipping point tipping anymore? Because false claims can only work when people believe it and they no longer care.

Gore et al must be smarting though, considering the billions invested in what is destined to become the ill fated Carbon Trading Schemes. There will be a backlash and it will be interesting to see where it comes from.

We won't get fooled again? Oh, yes we will.

Kevin Rudd will probably just fall over the line with a vastly decreased majority.

We also have to take it to the Liberals about their intentions on censorship and reducing the power of the corporates over our lives.Barnaby Joyce talks about breaking up banking cartels.Is he serious or is this just more bravado?

The internet has both parties worried since now the electorate is beginning to shine the torch of truth in their eyes and they feel trapped by the glare.

We have to keep questioning both parties since both serve the same master and it is not us.

Atman,

What do you think will happen? Do you think that one day you'll wake up and everything will be different? Get a grip...the change is incremental over time and is unlikley to be a smooth linear transition.

The reason that many have deserted the site is that it's pointless to argue any more.

And, as I said earlier, people are bored with the whole argument...those that believe will carry on believing and those that don't will carry on not believing. Where is the point in arguing?

You are right Grahame when you say "attitudes to global warming is a cultural matter "but attitudes to war or impending disasters have always been subject to human values.Bagladesh people continue to live where they know a flood will come.If we had been warned that Haiti was going to have an earthquake soon, very few poor people would have moved away.Poor people have very few options.We in Australia have been the lucky country, the memory of war is far away.The Victorian fires have not been seen as part of G.W. We live for now and let tomorrow take it's course. Read "No Impact Man" by Colin Beavan and see how human life is affecting the planet.The "tipping point" is coming but no-one knows when.

Atman, you are so droll. Which part of the following statement do you not understand?

“Catastrophic climate change does not happen overnight".

For the information of others, the vast majority of climate scientists are NOT saying the world as we know it will end tomorrow.

What they are saying is that the ‘Earth system’ is “squealing”.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can look it up, and understand.

Atman -> “We won't get fooled again? Oh, yes we will.”

‘Debate’ what needs to be done, when to do it, and by whom – but it is a real fool who closes their eyes, clasps their ears, and rocks to the voices in their heads, Atman.

Apologies to the intellectually challenged.

This is an issue that won't be going away; the apparent shift in public priorities is likely to be temporary as whoever is in government will be getting scientific advice that continues to say this is serious and increasingly urgent. If those in government take their responsibilities to future generations seriously - or merely have concerns for how history will view their legacy - they will increasingly make serious efforts on this issue.

The Mainstream Media may feel that they set the agenda and appear to want to put this one on the back burner, but it's illusion - this will keep on coming back as a serious issue. Sure, their lightweight fluff concentrating on side issues and cold snaps has popular appeal but it will ultimately be seen as the misleading nonsense it really is by those who have a genuine interest in being well informed. For example January 2010, according to the latest satellite data is the hottest month in the satellite record, see - http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/02/record_warmth_last_month_accor_1.html - with much more of the planet showing hotter than average than colder. Definitely not the kind of data that favours abandoning all efforts on emissions reduction.

I meant to add that, when it comes to something that will impact us over decades and centuries, 2 years is barely a blink; whether the urge to take serious action will come soon enough to avoid the worst case scenarios is yet to be seen but ultimately it will be these few years of the popularity of denying AGW that will be short lived.

I notice adhomien attacks on Atman,challenging his intellectual prowess? No argument based on substance,just their venom based on personal bias.

The reality is this,the world has not warmed in the last 10 yrs even with a 26% increase by man made CO2.The Northern hemisphere has had record cold winters that excel records of 40 yrs or more.Climategate reveals a cover up of mind boggling proportions and the popular media just ignores it because their masters in Wall Street,want a new derivative called Carbon Trading to further fleece the masses.

It is a sham and con of monumental proportions that would see the UN ,under the auspices of the Global Reserve Banks, extort carbon taxes from us,to feather their nests.

This is nothing but facism dressed up in the noble, palitable form of saving the planet based on a lie.It is an amalgamation of left wing green movements and a corporate elite who see it as their right to save the planet and themselves because our humanity in too much a burden on the planet.Maurice Strong the ex-secretary of the UN wants the world pop reduced to 100 million.This means mass genocide

Have you noticed something significant about all the 'errors', 'typos', 'mistakes' and similar in IPCC reports?

ALL of them are in the direction of "OMG, its worse than we thought".

Not a single instance that I have seen (I may have missed one or two) is in the direction of understating the 'problem'.

Why is this so??

<< Like many others, I feel that if the rest of the world is doing close to b*gger all, why should we tax everything to make 0.1% difference to the world. >>

Good point Shadow Minister. This is a huge reason why the motivation for action needs to be changed. Notwithstanding the fact that anthropogenic global warming is probably very real and significant, we should be concentrating on much more tangible things, as I outlined in my last post. In so doing, we would be addressing AGW a whole lot more effectively than we are now or would be with a Rudd-style ETS.

Well explained Arjay. At least you have done your homework on this subject. Few really understand how close we came to disaster though not one brought about by Climate Change.

I notice the new pro AGW line is either "lets discuss it" or "its a long way off but still a problem". Where has the urgency gone? What happened to the imminent disaster/its already too late scenario or even "the science is settled" line?

Seriously quanda, if you do not remember the widely publicised statements from Scientists that Global Warming disaster was not only imminent but was already causing problems then your memory is very selective. Let me quote one example from Greenpeace:
"The 0.6 degree rise we’ve experienced already kills 150,000 people every year."
from: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/problems

So, please stop pretending that AGW scientists were saying the disaster was a long way off. That is just nonsense. They clearly stated problems were happening NOW.

Phil, people, even prominent Scientists, are abandoning the cause at an alarming rate. Surely, you have noticed your fellow pro AGW people becoming more interested in discussion and less frantic about imminent action? They now strangely have time to work it all out with the non-believers.

Even Dr Phil"ClimateGate" Jones is changing his tune. He has recently admitted there has been no statistically significant Global Warming since 1995.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490

To respond to quanda's unnecessary personal attack I will quote Charles Mackay:

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

So quanda, don't be the last one.

GY
Good spin, just right for anti labor propaganda. i.e. up to 25% .When the flip side is 75% still believe down from 83%
I thought you were better than that. But as you said this is opinion not objective.

Your point is a minor one. Save that of human propensity to still have the concentration span of primates.

Shadow
Your response is incredibly Liberal 'greed is good' untill the end.
You should remember the paratroops lament. It's not the fall that needs attention it's the sudden stop, Better you check your 'shute or learn to fly.

With all the effort spent there still isn't a scientific inclusive coherent alternative to ACC. (AGW to those who live by the media).
No alternative can explain the satellite data,(all those I've seen just ignore it) or the retreat of the *western* Tibetan glaciers that feed the 4 main eastern Asian rivers. Nor will the nit picking matter a gnat's hemorrhoid with 300 million refugees. We can't cope now with 12 million or so.

Neither do the natural solutionists account for the major difference today when compared to "past events", 6. something Billion humans.
And you're concerned about your toy filled lives, based on a magic pudding economy.
Wasn't it a wise Indian Chief who said after the last game is gone, the last fish caught try eating your money.

Atman, you obviously don't know what a "squealing" climate is, we are having problems now.

Arjay, it would be ad hom if I apologised to you, I haven't.

Global warming no longer an issue.

I don't think so. I do not see any sign that worsening environmental problems will go away.

what I do see is a flawed ets that was too complicated to get in, electorate/s that are not prepared to make hard decisions to deal with real problems, and political opportunism in an unprecedented form to complicate and wreck the need for crucial reform.

The lack of urgency about the global warming debate (around the world) may even suggest why we will now again struggle to meet other important needs such as housing.

Politics does appear to be about who can make appeal to the greatest number of voters to win the necessary seats. While I love democracy, I am worried about recent policy trends and the type of debate that is coming from both sides of politics now.

All i see is pain ahead, whether on the environment, or the standard of living as costs rise for housing, food and utilites.

K Rudd has to decide if he is going to be a conservative industry minion, or a real statesman.
I am convinced that no real change can occur using taxes and enforcement...it just won't work. We will need to adapt to climate change, whether "natural" or "man made". This will involve a switch to sustainable and *robust* housing, water, farming and energy. Only investment in R&D will achieve this. It will not be achieved if we continue along the regressive Howard trend of large underclass of poor folks serving a minority of super-rich. social policy is actually rather important!
We need positive action: Renewables won't be viable until cheaper then the alternative...Peak oil and an end to unaffordable subsidies will soon make this possible. (Unless, like banking, it is propped up unsustainably...again.)
Renewables are not just as green thing either, they are absolutely necessary for the ongoing sustainability, indeed viability of our country. They will provide real jobs too.
We need our military to abstain from joining foreign wars for resources, we do know that the "war on terror" was a sham now don't we?
Alas, it looks like Kevin is just John with *slightly* more conscience: Still a religious conservative who is primarily political.

I don't think that you can blame people to much for either tuning out to the problem of climate change or completely going into denial about it, and turning off to Rudd Government. Firstly the problem seems huge and you need all the countries of the world singing from the same hymn book to address it. Copenhagen did not achieve that.

Secondly, only the people really up on the subject understand Rudd's solution which the Greens and environment movement say won't work anyway.

Thirdly, that seductive devil (shudder) Abbott is whispering in people's ears that he has a pain free solution that won't hit them in the pocket.

Lastly though, and most importantly I think is that people are just rushed, tired and de-engerised. They spend hours getting to work in stressful conditions, they have to worry about where the food and rent money is coming from, they get told that everything they eat, drink and breath, is likely to be killing them and that they are ruining the planet by leaving the lights on and going for a drive and they have to handle the everyday stuff of dramas with family and friends.

It's no wonder that people are deciding just to be 'happy', get on with their lives and leaving the worry to later. We may be leaving our grandchildren interesting times, but if they were living now, they would probably be doing the same thing. Just human nature. I agree with the recent Age article that we need someone who can communicate to get interest going again in a positive way.

It is hard to have a sensible debate with people like Arjay who sees a conspiracy in every piece of evidence and presumably genuinely believes all of the hard working, poorly paid, disconnected researchers around the world feel the need to lie and falsify findings to ensure their funding.

Take this quote "The reality is this,the world has not warmed in the last 10 yrs even with a 26% increase by man made CO2.The Northern hemisphere has had record cold winters that excel records of 40 yrs or more.Climategate reveals a cover up of mind boggling proportions and the popular media just ignores it because their masters in Wall Street,want a new derivative called Carbon Trading to further fleece the masses."

Wrong in every count! Er, sorry he at least admits that man made CO2 is significantly increasing...

With the inability to use empirical data then we must resort to anecdotal evidence such as retreating glaciers, melting tanundras in Russia etc.

Perhaps someone would care to comment on why today the Canadians have abandoned the Olympic downhill events as there is NO snow, record high temperatures and rain. This supports the statement on record cold winters in the Northern Hemisphere? Perhaps Arjay thinks Vancouver is in Mexico!

I feel sorry for any politician trying to address the issue as they need to be elected to implement policy but once the media "swings" public opinion then how can they press on with critical decision making if it is going to lose them an election!

Alan Jones et al will be long buried by the time the world really goes "pear shaped".

Chris, and others (so called religious people)

Apart from the opening five words, I would agree that your conclusions are on the money.
I contend that it is still 'the issue', but articles *like* GYs (not his alone)simply undermine human resolve and attention.

*The problems are still there. They haven't gone away*
On one level the sceptics are entitled to their doubts even opposition but one would have thought those who proclaim Christianity (Abbott included) would move beyond 'destroy the theory by any means' thus creating a lack of attention/resolve to deal with the problems creating an obvious a vacuum. It to this insert cynically, self interest.

One is entitled to ask these so called Religious, who are keen to, proselytize even impose their values, to actually practicing what they profess... 'being their brother's keeper'(a concept in most religions) and replace the theory with either one that meets all the circumstances/data/science or a remedy.

If for example, the Ganges and China's yellow river etc, decrease because of the retreating *specific* Glaciers and desertification of that end of the Tibetan plateau progresses which they are. Then negative feedback reduces those rivers further we have an obvious refugee disaster in the making. Far exceeding that of both WWs combined and then some.

In short 'the great moral challenge' hasn't gone away it has simply transmogrified into one that should challenge every so called religious sceptics and/or deniers

A fascinating “role reversal” is taking place on OLO. When NIWA acknowledges that they don’t have the SOA to support their warming claim, I believe them. When the IPCC, CRU, London Met Office and many of the lead authors acknowledge flawed data, people credibility, processes and probity, I believe them.

AGW supporters on the other hand are defending, excusing and mitigating. They have become so, how can I put it? Skeptical.

Peter king tries to write off everything as a conspiracy yet fails to address the facts.Fact 1.C.Monckton found several hidden references to a world Govt in the Copenhagen treaty which Rudd was about to sign.The carbon taxes were going to finance it.Fact 2.The climategate emails reveal not only that they tried to hide the decline but also a whole culture of coverup,lies and nepotism.

Do you think Peter King that you would be able to have a vote in this New World Order? George Herbert Walker Bush raised the spectre of this evloving back in the early nineties.They have been working on this concept for a long time.With the collapse of the US $ they want world currency owned by the these Global Reserve Banks and they have alluded to this.Open your eyes.

This SMH journo sums it up without the typical tabloid spin:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/warmings-icy-debate-20100212-nxky.html

The recent IPCC kerfuffle will have served a good purpose if they build more robust systems and procedures for AR5. This is critical if they are to ensure the efficacy and veracity of scientific research and concomitant conclusions. It is clear that most climate ‘sceptics’ and critics of the IPCC have not, and do not, bother to ‘fact check’ themselves – some even distort and misrepresent the science, unintentionally or otherwise. However, that in no way absolves the IPCC from their responsibilities, lest they themselves be called hypocrites.

The problem, as has been pointed out, is that a lot of ‘joe 6-packs’ (thanks Sarah Palin) just don’t understand the science and don’t know what to believe in anymore – they are baffled, confused and are just so over it. Moreover, they certainly don’t want to believe that they are collectively contributing in any significant way to an ecological and environmentally impoverished future world.

So yes, I agree with Graham when he says ‘the great moral challenge just leaves people in the cold’ – it’s much easier to stick your head down a hole, and point your butt to the sky. Intense lobbying (engendering fear and doubt) by powerful ideologues to maintain the status quo is having a huge impact on adapting to climate change, and living in a more sustainable way.

For those who are genuinely interested in the problems we are facing now, try;

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1920168,00.html

or

http://climateofourfuture.org/tipping-flickering-and-squealing-herald-change/

______

Atman & Co

It appears you are salivating at a particular piece of journalese in a UK tabloid – the Daily Mail.
And the spittle being spat has spawned more spits and spats across the planet.

Perhaps you could open your mind here;

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/growthgate/

Or enrol in Stats 101 at your nearest U3A.

_______

Arjay,

In your own words, what do you think “hide the decline” means?

qanda.They had to hide the decline in rising temps since 1995 even with expodential increases in CO2.The issue is not climate change,but what factors are causing it.CO2 does retain heat but by only a small fraction of what is claimed.

Arjay, it was a little worse than that, mate.

They found that the last 20+ years of their proxy [tree ring] record, aproaching 2000, had shown falling temperatures, rather than the rising temperatures their fiddled actual records were showing. This was the decline they wanted to hide.

This stood to destroy their plan to remove the medieval warm period, & the little ice age from history. They were using these proxies to eliminate those proofs that modern temperatures are not unusual.

Poetic really, isn't it qanda, that they were caught on their own lie. Hooked on a tree ring. Rather than go back to real science, they wanted to hide the fact. This, more than most of the Emails, shows just how far they were prepared to go, with their lies, & cheating, to push their con.

Graham,
There was a 3% swing from labor to coalition. Was it only one way or was there any swing from coalition to labor?

Arjay, Hasbeen - caught out by qanda. The "decline" was a decline in proxy data that did not correlate with actual instrumental measurements. Two points. First, there was clearly some factor unaccounted for in converting that set of proxy data, whereas many other proxy data did not show this problem. The motivation for adjusting or "hiding" was to remove an obvious anomaly, not to get the answer they wanted (which you conspiracy theorists will not believe for a second of course). Second, this concerns a only tiny part of the total data set that documents global warming over recent decades. It does not concern the total data set, which continues to show clear warming on the decadal scale.

Arjay, Atman - you demonstrate why we need professional scientists who know not to take local or short-term evidence and assume it applies to the whole world. The northern jet stream has been doing bigger than normal meanders, and they have brought arctic air into mid latitudes in some places - and mid-latitude air into the Arctic, in other places. The cold regions happened to be population centers - Eastern US, Europe, China. Intervening regions, like Alaska and Western US, were warmer than usual. This - finally - has been picked up by the media because of the winter olympics. Washington, London and Beijing each thinks it's the capital of the universe, so they squealed that the world was freezing.

Arjay - "The reality is this,the world has not warmed in the last 10 yrs even with a 26% increase by man made CO2." How many times do we have to explain - CO2 is not the only influence on climate, especially in the short term. There was an El Nino in 1998, and it was hotter than the trend, as expected. As the 2007-8 La Nina developed, climate scientists explained this would keep the world cooler than the trend, but this should not be misinterpreted as the end of global warming. Did you lot listen? Oh no.

Atman, why do we not debate you so much? Because you are so ill-informed.

Arjay,

Thanks for your interpretation of what “hide the decline” means – but you make the common mistake of not ‘fact checking’ what you read in mainstream media or your favourite blog/s. You certainly don’t go to the primary source for your information, like all good sceptics would.

Hasbeen,

You on the other hand, are different. You have obviously done some homework – yet you still fail to get it right. Why?

Either you are so ignorant of the science, or you are deliberately distorting or misrepresenting what has occurred. Nevertheless, you have clearly cherry-picked phrases and taken them out of context.

_____

Everybody

“Hide the decline” refers to Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree-ring density proxy diverging from the temperature records after 1960 (not for the 20 years approaching 2,000 Hasbeen).

This is well known within the scientific community because, rather than “hide” the divergence, he published a paper on it for all to see in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).

Briffa and his team of researchers have always recommended not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, the decline has never been “hidden”.

Obviously, further research into the “divergence problem” is required. In the mean time, I can only suggest to people like Arjay and Hasbeen that they take their blinkers off, put their ideological biases aside, and stop shooting from the hip

Qanda it is in exercise in masochistic futility trying to debate guys like Arjay.

Their paranoia is so extreme that they can't even properly read and more importantly comprehend a response to their ravings.

Take his last response
"Peter king tries to write off everything as a conspiracy yet fails to address the facts.Fact 1.C.Monckton found several hidden references to a world Govt in the Copenhagen treaty which Rudd was about to sign"

What I actually said was "It is hard to have a sensible debate with people like Arjay who sees a conspiracy in every piece of evidence and presumably genuinely believes all of the hard working, poorly paid, disconnected researchers around the world feel the need to lie and falsify findings to ensure their funding." No suggestion that I see any conspiracy...far from it!

Extrapolating this lack of comprehension explains the shrill posting on this site as to "climategate", "Cantcount" Monckton and any other "one line grab" that talks of world governments etc.

Your pleas for these guys to "do their homework" is lost as they would need to understand actual sentences with words of more than one syllable.

This is of course totally off topic but the frustration of ill informed people is too much to bear :)

Well done on catching Arjay out. Of course, he should know the definition of that specific statistical technique known as hide the decline:

Where there is an "obvious anomoly" but you don't know why (read "doesn't show what I want"), perform trick to make it do what I want, or similarly recommend just ignoring data. Whatever you do, don't question validity and reliability of whole proxy reconstruction, do unburden oneself from the scientific stance of unknowing, perform elaborate but artful statistical manipulation, and adopt shrill and pompous tone of qanda, Ken Fabos or Peter King to convince others that you are totally informed and that this is the reason for being perpetually frustrated.

The climatocracy is crumbling and I'm loving every minute.
Have another drink gentlemen.

Are we supposed to take Hasbeen or Arjay seriously? All the thermometer and satellite data which shows warming is wrong because of some tree ring data? Utter rubbish - the proxy data which used to follow thermometer data started diverging; which do you leave out because it's clearly wrong and which do you keep because it's clearly right? Hasbeen and Arjay want people to believe every measure that shows warming is wrong because scientist leave out stuff that's obviously wrong. The same Arjay, who thinks the planet is cooling because - "The Northern hemisphere has had record cold winters that excel records of 40 yrs or more" but who hasn't even looked at the satellite data for January or checked how much of the planet was experiencing warmer than usual temperatures during that time. You really think this shows a superior grasp of facts? There's a link in my previous comments to the satellite data that shows that January 2010 was the warmest in the 30 plus year of the RSS record. A lot of the planet including Vancouver was experiencing much warmer temperatures than average during that 'cold snap'.

Time people stop jumping to conclusions based on selected bits that suit an agenda and look at the whole of what is known and measured; temperature trends - satellite, weather station, borehole, ice loss trends, ocean heat content trends, sea level trends, . Only by being selective (with bias) can anyone even atttempt to show that warming isn't happening. Sorry guys you aren't fooling anyone but yourselves with this green conspiracy stuff.

I see the thread on my article has veered off beyond the polling issues. But qanda, if you are going to jump on Arjay, you might as well get your facts straight. It was Phil Jones who used the phrase about Mike Mann's "trick" in Nature. As I googled to find the correct email I came across this entry on Climateaudit. http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/ Not only does it have the primary source (which appears to have eluded qanda despite his lecture to Arjay about primary sources), but it gives some good descriptions of what was being done.

And this is where we bring it back to polling. It is quite outrageous for anyone to suggest that the proxy data is obviously wrong and so needs to be adjusted. The proxy data is measuring whatever it is that it is measuring, but it is obviously not temperature because when you match it against the temperature record it doesn't fit. In which case all of these reconstructions are useless as they are just as likely to diverge from temperature in the past as they have in the present.

It is not a matter of "further research".

I would regard it as fraudulent to do anything like this with my data. No pollster worth their salt would fiddle with things in this way. You can't excuse what has been done here by saying that someone did a paper explaining it, so that makes it OK. It doesn't. It is a good demonstration of how degraded climate "science" is that anyone would accept that as reasonable.

Graham, I was not referring to Phil Jones at all, despite your protestations to the contrary.

I was referencing Keith Briffa, specifically Nature (391, 678-682).

Indeed, I did not even raise the "emails" that a lot of people (you now included) seem to want to focus on.

Proxy reconstructions are ok if they support anti-AGW, strange that.

Peter King,
You’re a slippery character, ay!

Arjay raises the propositions, and asks your response:
“Monckton found several hidden references to a world Govt in the Copenhagen treaty which Rudd was about to sign"

And you slip away —with your little passion play :
“ all of the hard working, poorly paid, disconnected researchers around the world feel the need to lie and falsify findings to ensure their funding." No suggestion that I see any conspiracy...far from it!”, and a few personal barbs for good measure.

Surely what Arjay believes or doesn’t believe on other subjects is not at issue here –only his point about Copenhagen’s (intended) treaty.

As I see it, your answer can be one of three
1) I’ve looked for, but couldn’t find the sections referred to , or
2) I found them, but (mis)took them to say something different , or
3) I haven’t bothered to look.

Come now, what is your answer? ( I’m tipping No.3 as the favourite!)

Geoff Davies,
It’s a bit rich you now complaining about sceptics pointing to cool spasms as evidence AGAINST GW .
As I recall it, it was the AGW spruikers (including some of our own pollies) who first used warm spasms as evidence FOR GW.

Why, it was only a few short months since some were quoting the hottest month on records, as ‘proof’.
And your side-kick Ken Fabos has only just cited a series of hot day as ‘evidence’ on another thread!

So, having given it a pseudo- legitimacy, you lot are now crying foul when it is turned against you –who mentioned ‘poetic justice’? yes, indeed!

qanda "hide the decline" comes from the emails and has to do with Jones and Mann. You raised the issue, not me, and the word "protestation" has to do with your comment not mine.

I don't have a problem with proxy data, nor do I have a problem with the fact that the world is getting hotter. I have never denied that increased CO2 should have that effect. The issue is how much and whether it matters. The problem with the bristlecones is that they are not good proxies.

What is interesting is that the perpetrators of these various paleoclimate reconstructions use bristlecones, knowing that they are not robust. If I was trying to overturn the orthodoxy on paleoclimate, as they are, I would use the most robust measures I could, and I would be open with my data and methods. I would be dead-scared I was wrong. That they are not suggests that their motivations are political, not scientific.

The Hockey Stick, and its sister reconstructions, is perhaps the biggest scientific fraud since Piltdown Man (which also involved grafting incompatiblities together).

By the way, I wouldn't go boosting Briffa who has also been caught cherrypicking (appropriate word for tree rings don't you think?) his data. Try googling Briffa and Yamal. So not only does he know they're not a good proxy, but he chooses which bad proxy he uses to try to manufacture the correct result.

Actually Graham, Arjay was the one who mentioned "hide the decline"; I just called on him to explain in his own words (I had the distinct impression he was confused about it, and I was right).

I raised Briffa because Hasbeen got the dates wrong.

If you and your lot want to bang on about “the emails”, go ahead – I’m not interested. Similarly the emails between Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts and Inhoffe.

You say “What is interesting is that the perpetrators of these various paleoclimate reconstructions use bristlecones, knowing that they are not robust.”

What I find interesting is that your statement wrongly implies there are no other palaeoclimate reconstructions when in fact there are many – and you know that. Nevertheless, you are still quite prepared to link them all in the same basket (no pun intended).

As I have said, even anti-AGW people are quite prepared to use “sister reconstructions” when they think it adds to their case (ice cores and ocean sediments come to mind) – such hypocrisy.

By the way, I don’t need to google Briffa/Yamal – this does fine by me, it is the primary source after all.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

Even your previously googled McIntyre and his Climate Audit blog gets a mention.

I am intrigued by Arjay's statement "Fact 1.C.Monckton found several hidden references to a world Govt in the Copenhagen treaty which Rudd was about to sign."

Where are these references. I do not have time to read the whole document and I have been unable to find reference to them in any reputable publication, so please give me chapter and verse.

Loxton

These links put Monckton's Musings (sarc) into perspective

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/10/19/monckton/index.html

http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2009/10/31/one-world-government-is-almost-here-lord-monckton-of-british-house-of-lords-on-youtube-video-and-2gb-radio-interview-with-allan-jones/

The latter exemplifies the banging from the pulpit to control the masses by fear and inculcate ignorance, in my opinion of course.

Thank you Qanda

So basically, Monckton has taken the word "government" used in the sense of governance as a verb turned it into a noun and extrapolated it to "one world Government". On this basis, the International Law of the Sea, which among other things requires ships to render aid and uses the word "Government" to refer to sovereign states is also a tool of the "one world Government". It is clear that Monckton is a clown of the first order and his acolytes are illiterate fools.

<< It is clear that Monckton is a clown of the first order and his acolytes are illiterate fools. >>

I disagree - Monckton is very smart

While he hasn't a clue about the science

(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9906#162552

he most definitely knows how to push an agenda, and get support for the cause.

I also disagree that his acolytes are illiterate fools. Most are just ignorant of the science. The rest have an ideological agenda to push ... out of fear, religious fervor or socio-political allegiance.

Incidentally, did you read some of the comments from the pulpit - some of Tony Abbott's fellow MP's added there tuppence worth, even from the office of Julie Bishop - pinning their tails to the donkey?

Qanda

I think you are being to generous to Monckton. To make false claims about something that is easily checked is either wilfully stupid or dishonest. Either way he has no credibility. I do not think he is particularly clever, unless you regard being able to temporarily grab media attention as clever. He will not change opinions, he will simply polarise people. Moreover, if you look at business and consumers, particularly the large amount of private investment going into clean businesses I don't think he will make much difference in the grand scheme of things. That is why I regard him as a clown.