rpg
Consistent with many who deny AGW, you claim that cries for you to show evidence for your position are called sneers, while your comments like "dodge", "your ilk",frippery","mountains of funding" are considered appropriate language.

The problem, as I see it is that there are a lot of people who just don't understand the scientific process.I would include Joyce,Abbot and Hockey in that group. The most common difference is that people who don't understand the process tend to generalise from single events, or give too much weighting to "outlier" events. This leads to the belief in miracles, magic and other unseen forces that only communicate with the pious.

If you want to read a book that describes this line of (non)reasoning, try Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "Fooled by Randomness".

And btw, land clearing not only reduces the take-up of CO2, but changes the albedo and evaporation dynamics, thereby reducing rainfall.

Or are you going to say that this year's rainfall in Australia's interior refutes all of this.

It's the climate, not the weather, that we're talking about.

Or have you got a better methodology for dealing with these issues?

jeez JM you didn't ask me for evidence but seem to know what I'm thinking, "you claim that cries for you to show evidence for your position are called sneers"

You are like so many Warmies, and seem to be able to see the future and what people are thinking, then get all upset when it turns out you're wrong.

As to recommending books to read, why not try "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay, because this describes your warmist thought processes, or lack of them perfectly.

So easy to counter silly arguments isn't it?

"Or are you going to say that this year's rainfall in Australia's interior refutes all of this." What utter rubbish you blither on with.

Clearly you're here for an argument .. please start without me.

Please don't tell me what I'm thinking, you sound like a pompous ass when you do that, seriously.

The warmies don't understand Barnaby Joyce, since you make it clear you don't understand scepticism of the warmist belief and it befuddles you.

I can see you're irritated, so will leave you to oscillate, or is that vacillate?

rpg,
Thursday December 3rd - Lateline (edited to stay within word count)-

TONY JONES: Is it your conviction as well that global warming is not the result of human activity?

BARNABY JOYCE: No, I think there is a portion of human activity that does affect global temperatures, Tony. I don't know whether it to the same extent that others believe it and I certainly don't agree with the capacity of human activity as they set out to change it.....

TONY JONES: But I ask you about global warming. You believe in the theory, as some of the scientists that you've been shepherding around the bush call it, of global warming yourself, do you? You believe that man-made global warming is true?



BARNABY JOYCE: I believe that there is a portion of human activity that causes global warming. But Tony, the facts are 97 per cent of carbon emissions come from natural sources as you well know and 3 per cent come from human activity. We are talking about a 5 per cent reduction of that 3 per cent - a nation that only produces 1.5 per cent. So it's 5 per cent of 1.5 per cent of 3 per cent and, Tony, really, the numbers are getting so small, mate.



TONY JONES: You - we've been through this before. But in recent weeks - the reason I'm asking you about your beliefs on this is, in recent weeks you've been shepherding around the bush the prominent sceptical scientist Bob Carter to meetings, to town-hall meetings. He tells the audience, after you invite him to, he tells the audience there's been no global warming in their lifetime. None, zip, zero, none. Is he right or are you right?

To me it sounds like he's trying to have a bob each way or just won't admit the truth about what he really believes.

The lib/nat experiment in Qld has been a joke from the beginning, not even chipping the Bligh government despite clear signs of white ant, rot and subsidence.

I propose therefore the formation of a new party, derived from grass (and) roots (and bourbon and) branch, hence:

The Libationals!

Here's cheers!

Suggestions for the inaugural meeting should be proposed and considered by all, membership of other parties is in no way prohibitive.

Rusty

Jedimaster
Nice try, but the RealClimate.org. website does not provide irrefutable scientific evidence that proves AGW. Its contributors include many who provided input to the IPCC reports. The IPCC has been assessing available scientific information since 1988, but has failed to prove that AGW is happening. As sceptics have known all along, and as confirmed by recent scandals such as Climategate and Glaciergate, IPCC reports are tainted by exaggeration, falsification and alarmism. Even Phil Jones of Climategate fame, now admits that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 15 years, and concedes that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

Raycom
Please! Just hit a few more keys before retailing the Jones furphy. This took me all of 30 seconds (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm):

Question: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say.

Question: "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"

Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

Don't you understand that certainty decreases with reduction in sample size? With a "sample" down of 2 years, you could show either dramatic cooling or warming, depending on which two years were chosen- but the statistical significance would be close to zero.

Don't you understand that science can't "prove" anything?- you can prove theorems in mathematics, but in science you can only make statistical correlations that imply causality as sample sizes increase. Climatology isn't like dropping cannon balls off the Tower of Pisa- we can't re-run "experiment Earth" dozens of times- the best we can do is look at the one timeline that we have from different points of view.

As to "gate-ing" every nuance in the scientific discourse- it's wearing a bit thin. It would be very easy to construct a "Monckton-gate" or "Joyce-gate" out of their errors and inconsistencies- but scientists don't do it that way- they 'fess-up to their errors, take their lumps and get on with trying to correlate agreed data with Occam's-razored theories.

...and they usually check the primary sources before they make statements.

What's your methodology?