Don,

What is your basis for the sweeping assertion that "those early searching questions have not been asked"? Are you that familiar with the (very large) primary literature? I don't find this credible, so I think you're hostile to climate scientists.

Leo Lane,

Whereas you are routinely, frequently, gratuitously ('your peabrained mate') and baselessly (my alleged corruption) offensive, my comments about Bob Carter are my considered, and quite defensible, opinion about his publicised work.

My comments in my last post were of course deliberate. You can dish plenty of it out but of course your thin skin can't take it.

I think Graham Young ought to give you an enforced holiday, because your posts are routinely offensive.

Oh dear!

Geoff,

The early searching question for the AGW upholders ought to be: 'Can we explain the current warming without recourse to our favourite hypothesis? We will need to counter the argument that it is another warming phase post the LIA. How could we show that it is not, but is something special? Well, our models need AGW to explain the current warming. But people will say, "Why is that? There wasn't any AGW in the MWP, was there?" Well, no, but people pay too much attention to the MWP, and in fact we would like it to disappear, and we managed to do that, courtesy Michael Mann et all, in the 2001 IPCC Report...'

Somehow or other, you've got to do better than this, and telling me to go and read a thousand or so journal articles whose conclusion is consistent with the AGW doesn't work unless they are consistent only with AGW. The observational data (MSU for example) are too equivocal to allow such an outcome.

No more!

Now to kwonder and his efforts. The following are examples of his more hilarious statements, from this thread:

22 March “has lent his name to a paper published in a so called journal of (dis)repute,”
22 March “Carter tagged himself to junk science”
22 March “You, again, are demonstrating your ignorance (if not stupidity) - this time misconstruing Professor Ian (Ove) Hoegh-Guldberg's site with some other.”
22 March “ 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.”
23 March “They parade their ignorance (innocent though it may be) as a badge of honour, unwittingly digging their holes evermore deeper. Carter tagged himself (and dug his own hole) to the paper of McLean (OLO’s ‘snowman’) and de Freitas ostensibly to counter the fact that he had not written or even contributed to any scientific paper on ‘climate science’, at all.”
24 March “This is a Wiki list of ‘climatologists’ Bob Carter is nowhere to be seen”

Our little trickster gives Wikipedia as a reference to support his outlandish assertions.
This is an extract from Wikipedia,”The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities.”
This is an outright, unsupported, scurrilous lie, about the level of the arch-liar Al Gore, or the IPCC, and is typical of Wikipedia.

The Journal of Geophysical Science is the journal of disrepute to which kwonder refers. It published McLean et al (Carter’s study), which showed that all warming is accounted from natural sources, and there is no room for the asserted “very likely” of the IPCC as to human emissions causing global warming. In any event only 55 scientists, 50 of whom were so conflicted that they should be disregarded on the question, back the unscientific opinion of “very likely”. (continued)

(continuation)
Since publishing the Carter study the journal had a change of editors, and hastily published the article emanating from the Hadleygate miscreants, said to refute the Carter study.

The authors of the Carter study submitted an article which disposed of the purported criticism of their article, and were refused publication.

These actions appear”very likely” to be corrupt conduct, with the filthy fingers of the IPCC all over the situation.

One of the comments about the original McLean et al was that it was accepted science, and may not have sufficient novelty to justify publication, but puny mouse thought it wrong in a way any undergraduate could understand. They would have to be down to kwonder’s level of comprehension, and hopefully there are not too many in that state.

kwonder would you care to tell the truth for once, when I ask you the scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, just answer truthfully “none”, instead of attacking a reputable scientist who has participated in removing the possibility of there ever being such proof.

Minor quibble, Leo

>> 22 March “ 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.” <<

You are confused, Geoff said this - however, I fully concur :)

______

Major quibble, Leo

On 2nd thoughts ... nah, your a waste of space!

Others maybe interested in this update:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/well_now_we_know_why.php#more

Suggest you follow the embedded links.

Cutting to the chase, Leo:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2858332.htm

Bye