What a transparent purveyor of tainted nonsense you are, qanda.

Climate Shift is a site I have not encountered before, but a glance at it shows it to be in the mould of the scurrilous Realclimate site.

There is a page of slurring of Professor Robert Carter, a competent and honest scientist, who of course must be constantly slimed by the warmeciles, since they have no science to support their nonsense.

The “science” which “refutes” Robert Carter, has been produced by the usual miscreants in this sorry display of anti science, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and K E Trenberth. A few other names are thrown into the mix, obviously as a ploy to stem the stench of the usual suspects.

Phil Jones, during his participation in the Climategate Enquiry, constantly repeats the mantra of “human caused global warming”, while having no science to back it up, and while admitting to his devious actions, in attempts to back the assertions of the mendacious IPCC.

qanda then has the effrontery to cast baseless aspersions on the reputable journal which published the study in which Robert Carter participated, showing that the warming relied upon by the IPCC in their pathetic “very likely” assertion of AGW, is all accounted for from natural causes.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion of human caused global warming.

A sorry display, qanda, but you are consistent, and always typical of your underhanded, insolent self.

Leo, Leo, Leo ...

You, again, are demonstrating your ignorance (if not stupidity) - this time misconstruing Professor Ian (Ove) Hoegh-Guldberg's site with some other.

http://www.climateshifts.org/?page_id=3913

Perhaps instead you should look at Annan's paper, the one that slam-dunked your hero.

But, perhaps not. You haven't got a clue about the science, you certainly couldn't counter Annan's expose of your hero's junk-science. If you could have, you would have.

No, all you can do is repeat ad nauseum the mantra of the deny & delay brigade.

Delude yourself all you want Nick/Leo, it aint goin to change the fact that your beloved Carter tagged himself to junk-science.

qanda, I appreciate that although you are able to read, your comprehension is poor. When I say a site is in “the mould of the scurrilous Realclimate site”, I am not confusing it with anything. I mean that it is run by someone attempting to mislead.

You have informed me that it is run by the notorious misleader, Ove, whose nonsense predictions about the Reef are monotonously proven wrong, so you have merely informed me that I was correct.

Your assertion is that Robert Carter is wrong, and you refer me to a site run by a shonk like Ove, who comes up with a study by four meritless, untrustworthy scientists, said to disprove a study by meritorious scientists, Robert Carter et al, published in a reputable Journal, and peer reviewed.

If, as I strongly doubt, the study by the miscreants stands up to scrutiny by Carter, and Carter’s study turns out to be wrong, we are only back to the situation where there is no scientific proof of AGW, despite billions spent to come up with proof. The situation would be that Carter would have failed to disprove the baseless, unscientific assertion of “very likely” by the IPCC.

You never face the truth, do you, qanda, and your shifty tactics never change. Slime competent people and produce nonsense from proven miscreants, which proves nothing, and even if it did, does not address the difficulty you have, which is that no one has been able to scientifically demonstrate AGW.

Your pathetic efforts make you look foolish. Your fraud is uncovered.

I take Don Aitkin's silence to indicate that he agrees with odo, Leo Lane et al., that the science I summarised is worthless, and presumably for the same reasons - grand conspiracy piled on the incompetence of the entire, extremely diverse, climate science cadre.

Regarding Nature and John Maddox, I certainly didn't regard him as "great", but I can see how his very conservative political views might have appealed to you Don. Among other things he abused his position by using Nature to conduct a vendetta against homeopathy. Not that homeopathy doesn't deserve debunking, but an Editor should not have abused his influential and notionally impartial position by getting down and dirty like that.

Regarding reviewing policy, there is nothing in principle wrong with an editor getting the views of an opponent, as well, hopefully as a more "neutral" reviewer (though, in the real world, "neutral' is often hard to find). The key is that the editor should require authors to acknowledge the contrary views and to address any point of substance raised, but not necessarily to bow to the judgements of the hostile reviewer. It is not the editor's job to settle continuing scientific debates, but to see the debate is carried forward constructively. It is not "plainly bad practice" to proceed in this manner. As Stezza and I (and many colleagues of my acquaintance) testify, that is our experience in the messy real world. To reiterate, there is certainly nothing prima facie improper about climate sceptic's papers going to non-sceptics for review.

Leo Lane and odo - my criticism of Bob Carter does not depend on complicated technicalities, nor on faith in any opposing person, and is not simply abuse of the kind you are so fond of flinging. It is that he has quite misrepresented the recent temperature and CO2 records in an elementary way, a way that any sensible undergraduate or intelligent layperson can understand. I have explained the problem at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/global-cooling-since-1998/
Scroll down to the Addendum on Senator Fielding.

Geoff I have never mentioned Carter, ever anytime, you may be mistaking where you read something relating to him, it was not from me.

Please check your data, this lack of accuracy and checking seems to be a common thread running through climate science posts and indeed the CS itself.

How dramatic, you should be in theatre, or are you? "grand conspiracy piled on the incompetence of the entire, extremely diverse, climate science cadre"

no not a conspiracy, just a common direction of interest you all have. Like skeptics, we have no organisation as such, but share concerns, as I can see climate scientists, to get ahead, share a POV. That is, to get funding and grants and to be in the 'right club", you have to adopt a common behaviour and direction.

Accepting AGW is central now to climate science, is it not?

I saw some data recently from the 1970s, backed up with station results, (National Geographic) and ever since, those results have been modified, and further modified over the years to get the results shown now. There are some sites ont he web discussing this, I'm sure you've noticed.

As a skeptic, I have always been suspicious of the "data sets" since they are created, with all manner of acceptable (to other climate scientists) tweaks and tricks. (CRU emails, and Jones says that he will not share since they are HIS datasets, you should make your own)

Sorry, not good enough, that's not science when you do that, it may be climate science, but I know of no other region of science that has a predisposed objective, to prove AGW, then quietly all the datasets start to match up.

If you are trying to show that delicate CS scientists have no idea how to present to the public, you are doing a fine job, drop the drama, check your facts, and please don't do a qanda and recommend books by obvious insiders masquerading as objective observers.

geoff, your patience is remarkable.

don, i can respond to your post, but see no need nor reason to if you don't respond to geoff's.