Protagoras, thanks for your post.

Without your help, I would not have realised that it is OK for lying greenies to give false evidence in Court. Could I trouble you for a reference to the legal basis for this situation?

I did not expect that you would have read Ian Plimer's excellent book, and now that you have given us a sample of your reading, I understand that you never will. It is beyond you, and for some reason this sparks your mindless animosity towards it.

Another irrelevant reference produced by our diligent, and shifty kwondass, pretending that there is a scientific basis for the assertion of AGW.

His reference is about climate models, and as kwondass well knows, the point of the peer reviewed article to which I referred him, recently, is that there is no justification for ascribing the then (2007) unaccounted warming to human emissions.

What he refers us to, is the now discounted "science" upon which our IPCC based its unscientific "very likely" guess on AGW, in 2007, which is now proven to be untenable. I say unscientific, because allocating unaccounted warming to human activity, with no basis to do so, is not science, but wishful thinking, typical of the warmist approach.

There was an excellent summary comparison done, of scientific method with IPCC method, which showed the methods to be almost exactly opposite.

If you keep going backwards, kwondass, with never a forward step, you know whither you will disappear.

Protagoras has clarified the basis of his deranged posts. He obviously has no perception of the topic, but a great urge to spout nonsense.

Leo Lane – only the deluded would believe that a small minority with vested interests, who wilfully misread the science and suffer an inability to recognise observed phenomena, could block the views of a large majority.

The fabricated nonsense of denialists is not held in high regard, therefore, the field of climate science will continue to expand and improve, the ongoing corrections will be published and additional research will mitigate the uncertainties. You see reputable scientists do publish their corrections in all disciplines, not just climate science – pseudo-scientists do not.

Recently Stephan Lewandowsky, a Professor at UWA, elaborated on the process of scientific peer review, explaining how it effectively works to exert quality control and to retrospectively self-correct earlier errors.

‘Lewandowsky also looked at the number of peer-reviewed articles published by scientists at UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre which have supported arguments against anthropogenic global warming since 2007. The results? Zero to the sceptics — out of 110 peer-reviewed articles on climate change.'

Denialists should cease quoting one J D McLean to advance their nonsense because ‘the Journal of Geophysical Research is publishing a devastating rebuttal of McLean's work, authored by a team of nine of the world's leading climate scientists from Japan, the UK, the US, and New Zealand:'

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

The toast of silly old codgers, the catatonic Toad of Toad Hall, is no doubt furiously brandishing his medieval pear of anquish whilst scheming his next attack against the “Nazi youth and bed-wetting minnies” all the while sucking up to Exxon, a shocking recidivist criminal, according to the myriad of writs and court records.

Plimer's fraudulent grab for cash, extends also to a publication on the web more than a decade ago, which remains, in the hope more people will be duped into assisting with his objective to exterminate those who "lie for Jesus":

"The Prof. I.R. Plimer Fighting Fund"
Broken Hill Community Credit Union Ltd (Bank no. 802377), account no. 56679
Broken Hill, NSW, Australia

Herein lies but a tiny example of a corrupt, senile and now desperate Old "Vorld" Order and their indisputable crimes against humanity.

Protagoras, you obviously do not understand that any assertion of anthropogenic global warming requires a scientific justification, and such a justification has not been discovered, despite billions being spent in vain efforts to find it.

The argument of the alarmists, now, is that we should not wait for proof, but institute the non solution to the non problem.

Al Gore, in his latest book, says that we should not concern ourselves with facts. He intends to work through religion in the future. He concedes that 60% of global warming is not caused by humans. He probably considers himself only 40% lying, now, but on any logical basis Gore is still the same 100% liar he always was, from the time he put forward CO2 as the cause of warming, in his film, of 35 lies in 90 minutes fame.

kwonder’s putting forward the 2007 AR4, as proof, is pathetic. That was the basis of the IPCC’s weasel worded “very likely”, now shown to be incorrect.

The article to which you refer us does not in any way negate the science which shows the IPCC’s assertion to be incorrect. It attempts to slime one of the authors, but there were four authors, and one of the reviewers said that the science in it was so well established that he wondered why there was any need to publish. There has already been a paper rushed through to counter it, by the frauds at East Anglia. Their paper was shown to be nonsense, by a study which was stalled for as long as possible

We owe a great debt to Ian Plimer, who had the expertise to expose this despicable fraud. Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic, and the only world leader who tells the truth about the AGW fraud, wrote a book exposing it.

He complimented Ian Plimer on his efforts in giving the true scientific base, as well as exposing the UN, IPCC, and various politicians. Reading it once clears the mind. By reading it many times, one becomes educated, about the greatest attempted fraud in history.

Leo, your head is buried in a quagmire of ‘denialist’ spin and clap-trap.
You may have heard the term 'ignorance is bliss' – you are an exemplar of that.

________

Protagoras

Have you noticed that Leo does not claim to have read, let alone understood AR4, or any of the scientific papers referenced in it – yet he insists ‘it’ is “dud science”? He has had almost 3 years to do some research into it himself, but no, he is quite content to sit in his armchair and hammer away at any evidence in support of AGW. Instead, he prefers to rely on interpretations from right-wing and neo-con think tanks, the Lavoisier Group a prime example – their existence set up explicitly to distort and misrepresent the empirical evidence.

Leo comes here hand waving Ian Plimer’s anti-scientific ‘Heaven & Earth’ (I’ve read it) from his reclining armchair on high while at the same time, is too lazy to read the primary literature that he says is ‘dud’ science. Voluminous science that is the basis of his anti-science posture. Leo does not have a clue. If Leo does not understand something, he ignores it ... despite the fact that anyone who could pass Google 101 can read and search out the real science themselves. Leo chooses not to because it threatens his blinkered ideological point of view.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Protagoras

Yes, we do have to separate the science from the rubbish churned out by Leo’s super heroes ... be they the likes of Carter, McLean and Plimer, or astroturf groups and those the likes of ‘Lavoisier’ and Co. While giving the public pretense of being on a mission to counter the science represented in over 3000 pages of technical papers, authored and reviewed by over 2500 individual scientists, and countenanced by scores of scientific institutions and international academies of science ... Leo’s super heroes are just plain and simple lobbyists for vested interests that want to, actually must, maintain their power and control over the status quo. So much so that they have to go on road trips with the modern day messiah in the guise of ‘Lord’ Christopher Monckton, in tow with the inimitable Bob Carter and Ian Plimer, with a load of ‘denialist’ bibles for sale in the boot of his car.

Insofar as the Heaven & Earth denialist 'bible' goes, Plimer had ample opportunity to correct the numerous errors in his opus (errors that were pointed out to him by equally numerous scientific peers as you pointed out, and then some) before he had it published overseas. He chose not to, and to many in the scientific community, this was the action of a charlatan who only seemed intent on growing a ‘nest egg’ for his retirement.

Leo Lane - No, you continue to deny scientific reality based on falsehoods and distorted information obtained from right wing economists, ignorant politicians, miners and sideshow geriatrics - all pimping for corporate polluters.

Saying anthropogenic climate change is a myth implies that it is OK to chop down forests, dump crap into the air, sea, and lands, wipe out species (including humans) and generally use the earth as a whipping boy.

That is the real danger of people like you. Linking to Plimer, Monckton and Klaus should be an indictable offence. People here prefer real science and despite your innuendos, they're exceedingly more literate than you.

“Kwondass?” “Kwonder?” I say Leo Lane, your half a sensory neuron is in a Kwondary. Kan I kwoffer you some kwelp?