kwonder, when did you post the reference to scientific proof of AGW?

We know the answer. You did not, because there is none.

When are you going to stop asking stupid questions, and answer one sensible one?

Why do we discuss AGW when there is no proof that it exists, and there is scientific proof that the warming comes from natural sources?

Even your fraudulent mates at East Anglia cannot come up with any basis for asserting anthropological global warming.

Their attempt to counter the proof that all warming is from natural sources lasted an extremely short time, although helped by an editor who expedited publication for the frauds, and stalled publication of the straightforward dismissal of their paper.

The Hadley miscreants did themselves more harm than good with their flimsy attempt to dismiss robust, reputable science, that all warming is accounted for, and human emissions have no significance.

You did not help yourself by relying on it in this forum. You really outed yourself on that one, as a backer of poor "science".

Any more posturing non-answers for us kwonder? You cannot tell the truth, and let down the AGW fraudsters, can you?

At least you did not cite Wikipedia this time. A slight glimmer of sense.

“To refer us to an entry in Wikipedia for a criticism of Plimer’s scholarly work, is an insult to one’s intelligence, as is the rambling nonsense which comprises Enting’s “criticism” of Plimer, which Wikipedia has the temerity to carry.”

Leo Lane – The reviews by Australia’s reputable scientists (and beyond), on Plimer’s fraudulent 'masterpiece’ were all appalling so I believe that’s called a consensus. Those who were duped into purchasing his book are entitled to a refund.

I think it would be better for you to know nothing than for you to spruik what ain’t so.

http://www.aussmc.org/IanPlimerclimatebook.php

http://scienceblips.dailyradar.com/story/an_astronomer_reviews_ian_plimer_s_book_deltoid/

Dear Lois Lane

Rather than embarrass you with physics and maths again, this is simpler for you to understand:

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/2/w9SGw75pVas

It only requires your limited attention span of about 10 minutes.

Protagoras

I have read Ian Plimer’s book and understand why it is a best seller in three countries. It answers questions upon which the fraud mongers have misled the public since Gore and his accomplice the IPCC started the disgraceful scam.

I have also read enough of Enting’s so called “criticism” to see that it is nonsense.

You are obviously not a reader, or you would not believe that clowns like Barry Brook, Ian Lowe or Graeme Pearman are anything but lightweight stooges, in this unfortunate saga of misrepresentation by the warmists.

Ian Lowe, you may not know, was the witness for the greenies in the Xstrata case, who had to admit, in the witness box, that he had exaggerated his evidence by a factor of 15 times. If he was not such a joke, he could have been charged with perjury.

But you put him forward, as a viable critic of a competent scientist like Ian Plimer

As for Tim Lambert, he has not to my knowledge ever been right about anything on climate change. In his favour, he was good enough to stand up and make a fool of himself, so that Monckton had a platform for his presentation.

You know nothing, Protagoras, and still assert what is not so.

Find a scientific basis for AGW, and then come back. There is no scientific basis for assigning any significance to human emissions in global warming.

If there were, kwondass would have posted it, instead of limiting himself to sliming people who know better than him. His pretence that he knows physics and maths is laughable, if you have read his posts over the past many months.

He is merely a pusher of dud science.

Dear Lois

>> Find a scientific basis for AGW, and then come back. There is no scientific basis for assigning any significance to human emissions in global warming. <<

You must have missed it:

http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html

You obviously haven't read any of the papers cited in AR4, but prefer instead to put faith in superman.

I see your entire post is ad hominem Leo Lane – no science at all. Got none?

That’s OK since you’ve dirtied things up you might also be deluding yourself. Xstrata is 40-per-cent controlled by Glencore International, the commodities trader that is one of the world's largest and most secretive private companies. What little is known about Glencore isn't pleasant.

Former Glencore/Xstrata big shot, Marc Rich was a wanted criminal in the U.S. Definitely supports the old saying don't ** in your own nest/Switzerland.

Marc Rich’s major brush with notoriety came in 1983 when he fled the United States, having been indicted in federal court of evading more than $48-million in taxes. He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis of the late 1970s but the grim raiders are never fussy about doing dirty business with criminals are they?

Last month, the Queensland government launched legal action against Xstrata for contaminating water including the water on two cattle properties downstream and wasn’t it Xstrata who were fined $1.4 million for the deaths of miners at the Gretley coal mines?

Xstrata was prosecuted for breaching its job security commitments as contained in an agreement at a Hunter Valley Coal Plant which resulted in the Company being fined $22,000.

And I hear tell that five Argentinian provinces have suffered negative consequences from the presence of Xstrata’s Alumbrera mine. There have been many breaches in their pipelines, spilling toxic materials into the waters which provides drinking and irrigation water to a large region.

http://www.theargentimes.com/feature/in-the-shadow-of-a-mine-pollution-corruption-and-crime-/

Much more too…… which well and truly vindicates Ian Lowe’s “exaggerations,” one would have to agree (if they're not deluded!)

You omitted to advise that Plimer is a mining executive too and likes to mine lead. Bludging off the environment is an excellent way to make top bucks but there will always be a few sycophants who want a share in the blood money. These are the cowboys who know nothing about the science and must resort to spruiking what ain’t so.