Peter Hume

>> The entire warmist belief system depends on the proposition that the globe is warming. But it is common ground that since 1998 it hasn't been warming but has been cooling. Do you agree with that? <<

No.

>> That being so all the computer models relied on by the warmists to predict that the globe was going to warm in that period were wrong; and any consensus that it was going to warm in that period was also wrong. <<

No, it is NOT so. See my comment about models here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10363#169648

My explanation about time series analysis has gone way over your head, as your next comment in response demonstrates.

>> The appeal to time series is an appeal to a temporal baseline that is not supplied by the positive science, that requires subjective interpretation, and is therefore arbitrary. <<

What a gem!

But, um ... er ... no, that’s not how science works.

>> And even if it were true that the globe is warming, it still wouldn't follow that any governmental action is warranted. <<

True, but they would be making a big kahuna of a dum-dum.

>> Now:
a) please admit that climatology does not supply value judgments and therefore the argument that it justifies policy action is invalid, and
b) who is this "we" you keep talking about? You speak on behalf of everyone in the whole world do you? Including everyone who disagrees with you?
c) your snivelling personal arguments only demonstrate your intellectual impotence and irrelevance. <<

a) Ok, I admit ‘climate scientists’ do not supply value judgments. And policies to address their objective judgment should reflect them.

b) If you can’t figure out who “we” are by now, there is little left to talk about.

c) Yeah right. I asked if you could pick a single model and link to it after you asserted “every model is wrong”. You won’t because you can’t and just won’t acknowledge that, and I’m the one getting testy – I wonder why.

Fester.
We're not talking about science, Climatism has nothing to do with science or climate and everything to do with superstition, oppression and control.
As I said whether the world is warming or not doesn't matter because the Commies are all now Climatists, the new class struggle is between the climate aggressors and climate victims.
Commies only see Victims and Victimisers.
Look at the way people respond to my posts, Climatism is about Racism.
Africans Always suffer because of White Colonialism not because of their own cultural or racial shortcomings and inability to understand their own situation or their own environment.
Every crisis in Africa has the same beginning and end, every place that is settled by Africans is the same pitiful mess, every African fleeing persecution is fleeing other Africans, every African society is corrupt, dysfunctional and on the verge of collapse.
Africans are in trouble because of other Africans but the only time they really starve or really suffer is when White people can't get there in time to help them.
We give money to Africa, the African elite steal it, the people go hungry and Whites get the blame while the cash gets funneled straight back into the Western Banking system.
If we have to compensate the Third world for Emissions it'll only cause more suffering, more war, more corruption and misery and the only people to profit will be the Climate Commies and the Robber Barons.
Climatism is about Greed, Corruption and Power, it's backed by a Religion called Political correctness which controls Western knowledge and science generated in universities like the monastic orders of old.
This is the way of things.
Non believers and heretics are persecuted and the people are oppressed.
More on the religion of PC
:http://natalt.org/2009/10/16/the-theology-of-political-correctness-original-sin/

Qanda and Bugsy - only just saw your not very constructive response, but I enjoy exchanging words with you guys.

Qanda: You have confused solar output (sunlight ect) with the solar magnetic field. Solar output doesn't vary that much, but the magnetic field does and, as the article says, there is now considerable evidence that it affects climate. The evidence is sufficiently strong that even the global warmers (Lockward ect as noted in the article) have grudgingly admitted there must be a case, albeit they also say that it breaks down in 1985. You are hardly alone in confusing the two, as even senior scientists have done so. As for current warming you have inspired me to look more closely at recent results. There most certainly is a correlation between changes in solar magnetic fields and the current pause in warming but I understand its not clear cut. I'll see if I can get an article out of it.

Bugsy - nope. You make an interesting point, but the main pont of paper is that the warming started well before the rise in CO2. The complications you cite are merely complications. As well as reading the paper you should look at the associated announcement by the university. In any case, even if you manage to poke a hole in the paper's argument, there are everal more which I didn't bother to quote saying the same thing. The minimum delay given is a couple of centuries. As this is now very well accepted global warmers have adapted their theories to suit. They now say that the obital cycles trigger warming which causes CO2 levels to rise which takes over the warming, and so on.

Mark, read my post again - particularly this bit:

“Professor Curmudgeon (ok, I'm being facetious) is doggedly trying to show a correlation between temperature and magnetic field variations over a period when temperature, greenhouse gas forcing, and some magnetic field index are all going up using (by inference) a statistical attribution technique which ignores greenhouse gases AND considers only the magnetic field index.

If we knew zilch about how CO2 affects climate, Mark's article would be interesting. However, we know a lot about GHG’s and their effect. No amount of fiddling by Mark (or any of the real climate sceptics, will make the physics disappear."

So Mark, I am not confused - I know exactly what you are talking about. You apparently, haven't got a clue what I am talking about ... or you haven't the attention span to read more than a few paragraphs.

Mark, what they also say, and what you are not saying, is that CO2 concentrations can drive warming after the 'initial warming', especially coming out if an ice age. But we are not living in an age just coming out of an ice age are we? Guess what Mark, we are already warm and chucking tonnes more CO2 into the atmosphere than would naturally happen from ocean desorption. What would these same scientists think happens in this situation Mark?

qanda and bugsy - qanda, no you were citing the wrong set of figures when you were talking about nothing having changed in solar.. you were talking about solar output, and never mind the rest of the post.

Sorry to break this to you guys but we do know a lot about the warming affect of CO2 if the atmosphere is just a pile of air and its quite limited. Doubling CO2 concentrations from now will add 1.2 degrees to warming.. the warming effect is more pronounced at lower levels, and then falls off...this stat is now well accepted, if not widely known. The climate models don't treat it as a pile of air, obviously, and insert a feedback mechanism, hence the extra degrees. It gets stranger. When I first started writing the book I, too, believed that the CO2 in the air was mostly human induced, but part way through I realised that something is seriously wrong with the whole theory and the IPCC had to ignore a major slab of established science saying that CO2 only hangs in the air five to seven years. Read my book when it comes out in the first week in June. Always good to chat with you guys.