from Science News Daily:

MAY 2010 GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS WARMEST ON RECORD; SPRING AND JANUARY-MAY ALSO POST RECORD BREAKING TEMPS
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for May, March-May (Northern Hemisphere spring-Southern Hemisphere autumn), and the period January-May, 2010, according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature for May and March-May was the warmest on record while the global ocean surface temperatures for both May and March-May were second warmest on record, behind 1998.
-- full story > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100616134641.htm

Hay Karin, was that before or after the unexplained, or justified "corrections", of up to 2 degrees Hansen, & his mates always apply to get their warming results?

Way to go Hasbeen. Your response proves the main argument of this article. I don't expect entrenched deniers to say anything else.

Professor Phil Jones, the Head of the CRU at the University of East Anglia says that there has been no global warming for fifteen years. What does carbon dioxide do?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

We are told that the IPCC is the repository of the worlds peer reviewed science. PROBLEM. A team of forty researchers across the globe have examined the ‘peer reviewed papers’ quoted by the IPCC AR4 Report and found that over 5,000 of their papers are not peer reviewed. Indeed a high proportion of those 5,000 papers are taken from conservation group media releases. Further, there is now a question, in light of the Climategate emails, as to how many of the ‘peer reviewed’ papers have had anonymous peer review? How many have been reviewed by friendly sources?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/ and

http://www.noconsensus.org:80/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

The whole issue of rising temperatures has been thrown into doubt by the work of D’Aleo and Watts. They have found that raw data has been manipulated by a process that ignores low temperature measuring stations in favour of stations in warmer places.

· Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

Dr Joseph D’Aleo & Anthony Watts expose the manipulation of raw temperature information that makes it appear that the globe has warmed.

In the USA, Dr Edward Long has found that rural temperature stations measurements have been increased by a factor of five. Why would honest scientists need to do that?

· USA’s Contiguous Temperature Trends using NCDC raw & adjusted data.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf

Dr Edward R. Long writes ‘The raw data shows a systematic treatment that causes the rural adjusted sets of temperature rate of increase to be 5 fold more than that of the raw data’.

The only gw is the hot air coming from the despondent pseudo scientist who had lied and manipulated the figures in order to support their dogma. The truth will always win out in the long term. Don't forget the ice age predictions that were supported strongly by the pseudo scientist in the 1970's.

I learned a lot from the Anthony Watts lecture the other night. His photographic survey of 1221 US HCN weather stations illustrates how the 'high quality network' has fallen into neglect and thus provides direct photographic evidence of why the official temperature record is unreliable. About 90% of the stations don't meet US standards.

Temperature stations located next to air conditioning units, in the middle of asphalt paved carparks, a metre or so away from buildings and other heat sources, when the old rule was 100 metres clear of buildings. Temperature stations in the middle of urban high rise, no wonder there's been so much warming. Of course the scientists manipulate the figures to allow for urban influences, but then you would have to also make allowances for whether the scientist was a government funded alarmist or an independent largely unfunded realist.

It's funny how the scam started in 1970s after 35 years worth of cooling. Oh that's right, some of the same people were alarmed about an impending ice age back then. When they saw the cycle turn in the late 70s they backed the 'warming' horse. When the cycle turned to cooling again a decade ago 'global warming' suddenly became 'climate change'. If the planet was in danger you'd never find out about it from this lot because they're too busy cooking the books and managing the spin. When you you hammer them on the lack of evidence they turn to ocean acidification and so it goes on.

Naomi/Erik, Your article maintains the battle of links and opinions. This will not progress the debate because these are part of the reasons for the current impasse. For every link or scientific opinion that you produce, someone else will provide something contrary. Zero sum outcomes.

It serves absolutely no purpose to go drilling down the same holes. I can agree that the science has been compromised and politicized, that much is blindingly obvious. It is also obvious that the IPCC and CRU has compromised credibility.

That leaves us with a broad body of “other” scientific research that supports what you are saying about AGW. It also leaves us with a similar body of scientific research that offers equal an opposite results. Neither of which is acceptable to the contrary views.

To persistently revisit the history of this debate and to seek to attribute blame for the current impasse is futile and counter productive as it feeds the existing prejudice.

Why can’t we all get behind a proposal to have both sides of the science get together and sort this out? Not politicians, not the media, not the commentariat and definitely not a well intentioned public, just scientists. Surely this is the most rational way to resolve scientific differences. There must be some sort of internationally recognized and mutually acceptable entity that could get access to all the data, get it processed, apply some research probity and have all scientific submissions dealt with in an impartial forum.

Let me put it another way, if science and its associated bodies cannot do this for AGW, what is there to discuss.

Any practical suggestions?

The opposition to global warming orthodoxy which Oreskes and Conway complain about is nothing compared to the ceaseless propaganda for their side. How can anything done by the sceptics possibly compare with the endless well-funded agit-prop conducted by the media, activist scientists and non-government organisations, not to mention the many thousands of otherwise well-meaning activists who quickly resort to abuse and even intimidation if they cannot get their way?
The Department of Climate Change in Australia alone turns over $80 million a year and that is just the tip of the iceberg in funding terms in this country alone. In Australia, in contrast, sceptics had to hand the hat around so that prominent sceptic Anthony Watts could tour here.
A more reasonable, balanced analysis may conclude that popular scepticism about the global warming orthodoxy is growing because people have begun to realise just how thin the evidence is for it, despite all the propoganda. It may finally be penetrating public conciousness that it fact much of it depends on unproven feedback mechanisms programmed into climate models.
On one point I will agree with Oreskes and Conway. Global warming is not a criminal conspiracy. In fact its anatomy is very similar to all the other scare stories (Y2K for example) that have been pushed on the public, it has just been going on for much longer. But the public are now beginning to realise it is just a scare story.

CO2 - the way Watts (and his groupies) rabbets on, you would think he has discovered something we haven't known about.

Loxton - precisely, now watch the holes in the woodwork ('denialist' blogsites, media shock-jocks, 'right-wing' and neo-con think tanks) for scurrilous movement. Wait up! Phoenix has already linked to them.

Runner - just a pretend 'believer'.

Hasbeen - the moniker says it all.

Spindoctor at his usual deceiving best.

Curmud - is the book out yet?

Good summary qanda.

They are so predictable its depressing. I think we have the full set except for Leigh and RPG. I'm sure they'll weigh in soon enough.

At least Curmudgeon didn't repeat that rubbish about everyone agreeing that the Earth is cooling. At least not yet.

If anyone has undermined science, it is the coterie of 'post-normal' scientists and conflicted activists who openly declared that 'scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence'.

This shameless crew of snake-oil salesmen and carpet-baggers have dragged the good name of science into disrepute in pursuit of, on the one hand, a Green-Marxist agenda and, on the other, naked profiteering.

I use an extremely crude test of whether or not global warming is happening: I look at the weather map for Australia each day, and check out when the highest maximum and lowest minimum for each capital city occurred since 1855 or so, to see how they have gone in the last decade. VERY CRUDE ! I check off maximum against minimums for this past decade. So far, over the past three or four months (VERY VERY CRUDE !) they are about even. Some days maximums exceed minimums, some days the other way around.

Read into that what you will :)

Joe

YES...GLOBAL WARRRRRMING IS HAPPENING... its true.. after all..I made a movie about it and I've written booooks about it....

Jim... quick.. grab me another parcel of shares in 'CLIMATE EXCHANGE'
it looks like our plan worked.. we have people even in Austraylia writing about it :) our current share holding should be worth gazillions soon.. let's add to it then we can fund MORE articles like that one in OLO.

http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html

David (Blood) send

-Naomi Oreskes
-Karin G
-ERic Conman

some options in our company GENERATION INVESTMENTS..they are doing such a gr8 job for us...

I founded the ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION a few years back.. we drummed up $300 mill...and told em "go...spread the word.. persuade persuade persuade.. people that CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL"... well.. (note to self) seems like it worked..

NEWS JUST IN...
http://climateerinvest.blogspot.com/2009/02/al-gore-score-generation-investment.html

Generation IM Climate Solutions Fund, L.P. (the "Shareholder") increased their shareholding (in CAMCO INTERNATIONAL) and now holds 23,250,000 ordinary shares of €0.01 each in the Company, representing approximately 13.74% of the Company's issued ordinary share capital.

CAMCO ? What do they do ? :)

http://www.camcoglobal.com/

SCAMSTEPS

1/ Create a perception of the problem.
2/ Posture YOU as the solution.
3/ Make MEGAbucks out of providing the solution to the problem you created a perception of.

Promises by previous 8 US Presidents to wean economy off dependency on fossil fuels:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future

From the sublime to the: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10577&page=0#174087

Balanced coverage?

qanda, in the shops three weeks from Monday and thanks for asking. $29.95, Connor Court. You should buy a copy.

Loxton - I sympathise with your bewilderment over the now widely held forecast that the world will cool over the next few years but the forecast still stands. Sceptics say that the cooling will continue for decades longer. The global warming proponents - that is the reasonable ones - say that it will occur for a few years before the CO2 induced warming overcomes the natural cycle (or perhaps temepratures may remain steady). Either way its now tacitly accepted by the warmists that some cooling will occur. They still stand by the long term forecasts, if that is any comfort. Check back on my (Mark Lawson's) articles on this site and you'll see the reasoning.

As for the author's contention that somehow a handful of underfunded sceptics managed to turn back a flood tide of green propaganda, we can all agree that its straight nonsense..

Phoenix94

Just like the writings of new dogs recruited by the denialists, you use old tricks by referring readers to fossil fuel shills who hawk their wares as ‘climate consultants or climate scientists.’ You have a cheek when none of the ‘climate experts’ to whom you refer are peer-reviewed, let alone qualified.

1. Your reference to author, Donna Laframboise reveals her sloppy work when she refers to ‘James Johnston’ ignorantly unaware that the paper she cites was written by Jason Scott Johnston. Both Laframboise and Jason are favourites of the Heartland Institute:

“Welcome to the Smoker’s Lounge, (Heartland Institute) the place to go for sound science, economics, and legal commentary on tobacco issues. This “issue suite” cuts through the propaganda and exaggeration of anti-smoking groups...."

Now just who are the ‘forty researchers’ Laframboise refers to Phoenix and why the obfuscation? Could it be because the IPCC looks at all the information which includes publishing peer-reviewed papers as well as gray literature from government reports and other important information sources?

2. Joseph D’Aleo is a retired meteorologist, not a climate scientist. He has no PhD and, according to Google Scholar, no peer-reviewed publications. A Google search on his blog the ICECAP, turns up nothing so draw your own conclusions.

3. The Science and Public Policy Institute’s chief policy adviser is one duplicitous Christopher Monckton, a retired hack and who the denialists insist was once a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher – a complete fallacy.

All these oil shills lead to the Heartland Institute and are parasites. They do not perform any climate research themselves but suck off the intensive research performed by credible climate scientists by mangling the results and peddling the disinformation to influence half-wits.

However, there are peer reviewed journals published by Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy and the Pielke’s that provide facts contrary to the IPCC but five sceptical climate scientists who actually work within the profession are hardly a consensus.

Don't be a 'hasbeen', avoid doing a 'runner' and do try to keep up.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

OK, I work with a bunch of climate scientists and have just come from a climate change adaptation conference. The notion that this is a criminal conspiracy is just nonsense! Group-think is the only real possibility, and until recently I hadn't entirely written that possibility off. Now I've seen so much data, and heard from so many Pacific island nations that even group-think is now unlikely.
Firstly, yes it is complex science. Just getting the raw data into a useful state is quite involved. Usually because real weather stations often have equipment upgrades, site moves, surrounding land has buildings, car parks, etc. built on them. A local car park can alter temperature readings by up to 1 degree! Urbanisation means that very few weather stations stay consistent over decadal periods.
Also equipment doesn't last forever and needs to be upgraded. New equipment (generally more accurate) reads differently to old equipment. The techniques to convert raw data into long term "apples and apples" data is called homogenisation. In every other science discipline using real world instrument data this is is considered normal and absolutely necessary. Of course the "sceptics" consider this process to be "fiddling" the data for a particular purpose and cite it as evidence of cheating. No, it is just science.
...

...
Another issue: Global warming is *not* just about temperature! It is about energy. A glass of water with ice cubes will *not* get hotter until the ice melts, then the temperature will rise. While we have ice melting, temperatures will not necessarily rise in all areas.
The earth's heat transport mechanism is quite complex and so global "warming" may well result in extreme cold is some parts of the world! As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park: "Global warming could bring on the next ice age". The ice melt in Greenland may reduce the amount of cold water sinking, which could in turn prevent the warm tropical surface waters from migrating so far north. Result: Europe gets more snow and *much* worse extremes. It might even bring on an ice age! We know that Earth has feedbacks to keep it stable over the long term, what we don't know is if they can handle a massive, incredibly fast shock that humans have given it. It probably (hopefully!) will handle it well in the long term, but in the short term it may over-compensate, or it may struggle to compensate (ie. Ice age or Venus are possibilities, most likely somewhere in between).
The "argument" here is really about cheap energy vs responsibility. Do we pay the piper, or do we delegate this to our kids? It seems that most older folks would rather retire guilt-free, and I can't blame them for this...but there ain't no science fraud going on...just some very uncomfortable possibilities and a lot of uncertainty.

Good news, about the Cooler Heads Coalition. There is no doubt about AGW being the greatest attempted fraud in history, but it has incredible impetus behind it.

The proceeds would be in the trillions, because legislation would enable carbon credits, given enforced value through legislation, but having no real value, to be traded among entities forced by legislation to acquire a worthless item.

At least the fraud in selling worthless mortgages caught up with the perpetrators, and there was a subsequent shakeout of the market, and cessation of selling fraudulent securities.

If the AGW fraud succeeds, the enforced sale and purchase of worthless carbon credits will continue to drain the economies of the Western world, or at least where the scurrilous legislation is passed.

That will not include countries with honest government, of which at the moment there is only one, the Czech Republic, where the President has told his constituents the truth, that AGW is a fraud. Only one nation!

The President Vaclav Klaus says that he has approached many world leaders, to persuade them to tell their constituents the truth, and has been uniformly rebuffed. He has written a book, “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” to explain the fraud, and recently congratulated Professor Ian Plimer on his book “Heaven and Earth” which exposes the fraud, and is a best seller in three countries.

There are reasons to hope that the truth will prevail, and the attempted fraud will fail.

That the push for this fraud continues in the face of a complete absence of any scientific base for the assertion of anthropogenic global warming is breathtaking.

There is settled science which demonstrates that all warming is accounted for from natural sources, and there is no room, scientifically, for the assertion that human emissions have any measureable effect.

Leo, you are a sucker!
The oil industry has you convinced that a bunch of scientists working for peanuts have duped the world, corrupted nearly all professional scientists (except for a few non-climatologist which are on the payroll)...meanwhile the *hugely* profitable fossil fuels industry is innocent as a baby! Are you serious?
Also please stop lying. There is no "settled science" that shows any such thing! Please cite peer reviewed articles if you are going to disagree with the conclusions of an entire profession.
The CSIRO recently went public saying "GW is real, the science is settled". Are you suggesting our entire climate and research agencies are corrupt without a single whistle blower evident? Are you suggesting they are so silly as to avoid the lucrative role of "whistle blower" if there was any truth to what you say?
This conspiracy rubbish is easily checked, and easily rebuked.

Ozandy

We should be rejoicing at Leo's "news". It means we can continue to use all non-renewable resources, pollute the atmosphere, rivers, seas, destroy entire environments, eradicate bio-diversity, overpopulate, continue to drive V8's and 4WD's. Here's to business-as-usual.

At no cost to ourselves whatsoever.

Party on dudes.

BTW. Do I sound peeved? You bet!
Having my co-workers being accused of outright fraud when working with some of the most diligent, professional workers I've ever had the pleasure to work with is somewhat annoying. Hearing the absolutely stupid theories, the irrelevant "evidence" and the sheer rhetoric...yes it is quite disturbing.
Having just come from the banking and finance industry which genuinely *is* full of fraud and incompetence and watching these leaches cause a global meltdown that should have been avoided...I'm reminded of the saying "If people act like sheep they deserve to be sheared". Well, we'll reap what we sow if we let the wealthy few deny the facts for another generation.
Along with "intelligent design" and other pseudo-mythical "knowledge", this anti-truth movement is getting out of hand.

Leo Lane “If the AGW fraud succeeds, the enforced sale and purchase of worthless carbon credits will continue to drain the economies of the Western world, or at least where the scurrilous legislation is passed.”

Indeed it would

It is the right of every tax payer and consumer to exercise scepticism about AGW

Millions of people were enslaved by the likes of Lenin under the lie that bad things were necessary for the sake of “common good” and “survival of the species”

We are not required to pay homage to the so-called climate scientists simply because climate scientists and the snake-oil salesmen, like Al Gore, tell us they know best.

"The President Vaclav Klaus says that he has approached many world leaders, to persuade them to tell their constituents the truth, and has been uniformly rebuffed. He has written a book, “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” to explain the fraud, and recently congratulated Professor Ian Plimer on his book “Heaven and Earth” which exposes the fraud, and is a best seller in three countries."

Well Plimer's book is fraught with disinformation so he's flogging the book under false pretences which makes Plimer a fraud. Klaus is an economist and has zero training in climate science. Is that the best you can come up with?

While global warming came and went naturally over millions of years, we must take note that it never had modern man to truly upset the system.

Thus we might begin with the Industrial Revolution when man gladly gave away the axe and spade to let man's brain first bring in steam power, followed by petroleum power, and so and so on, till one might ask what would happen to our globe if we let our precious earths be managed by our young speed or rather power maniacs losing our precious jungles in no time just to show what man is capable of.

So global warming deniers please do some deep thinking and try to save our globe not only for nature, but for your own descendents...!

Loudmouth:
<I use an extremely crude test of whether or not global warming is happening:>
You and your ilk are an extremely crude set!

Stern:
<It is the right of every tax payer and consumer to exercise scepticism about AGW?>
It certainly is the 'right', but never the prerogative; they wouldn't know the first thing about genuine scepticism. They're minimifidianists; there's a big difference!

<Millions of people were enslaved by the likes of Lenin under the lie that bad things were necessary for the sake of “common good” and “survival of the species”>
Now 'Billions' of people are enslaved to the reified fantasy of the 'common good' in a designer dog-eat-dog world---a bit of a contradiction. A part of the delusion is imagining yourself free.

Ozandy - are you sure you work with scientists?
This is what you wrote: "Another issue: Global warming is *not* just about temperature! It is about energy. A glass of water with ice cubes will *not* get hotter until the ice melts, then the temperature will rise. While we have ice melting, temperatures will not necessarily rise in all areas."

This business about ice being a heat sink sufficiently large to affect global temperatures has never been supported by anyone, skeptic or warmist. The oceans regulate temperatures, and the oceanic climate cycles are crucial - a point that has only recently been recognised. Look up AMO and PDO for starters. Any effects from those far outweigh any effects from ice.
By the by, you are aware of the temperature series kept by the likes of Hadley and the UAH satellite data aren't you? And the fact that they are maintained for poles and equator regions? You may also be aware of attempts to explain away recent cooling in those series by claiming an aerosol effect - but perhaps you could ask your esteemed colleagues.

I won't comment on Jeff Goldblum's quote from Jurassic Park: "Global warming could bring on the next ice age" which you cite, although I am tempted.

I think the greatest moral challenge of this century has just changed to being elected again or at least holding on to the leadership of the party. Hopefully Mr Abbot will find a few scientist not willing to twist their observations and fiddle the books for gain like the alarmist did so well until their sleazy campaigns came unstuck. Who said China and India was more gullible than the Australian public?

"You may also be aware of attempts to explain away recent cooling in those series by claiming an aerosol effect -"

Curmudgeon - Please provide me with the link on aerosols and cooling.

Protagoras - As an explanation aerosols has mostly already been and gone, but if you're interested the article on aerosols in Wikipedia is a good place to start. No, I'm not refering to the article itself but it gives various references and links which should give you an idea of the work done. Wikipedia itself, as you know, is most unreliable as its written to give the best possible slant to the activist case. Check out the article on the hockey stick. Its a hoot. However, the links are sometimes useful.
In essence aerosols is a nutty suggestion like the one on ice and one contradicted by the known facts as the Southern Hemisphere has (or had) cooled more than the Northern, but most of the aerosols are in the Northern hemisphere where the bulk of industrial activity is.

Arguments about the science are not as relevant as risk. Global warming, or any other potentially catastrophic event, is a risk that needs to be incorporated into both private and public decision making. The existing evidence certainly points to a significantly high probability of extremely adverse events at some unknown future time.

Regardless of who is right in the scientific debate, sufficient evidence exists to warrant internalizing environmental externalities on public and private balance sheets - simply as a risk management strategy. Not to do so is like driving a car, or running a company, without taking out appropriate insurance.

ozandy "it is just science", yes, as we know it and as so many arrogantly assume that science today is the be all and end all.

The expectation that if a scientist says something and is challanged by a non-scientist, it amounts to heresy - one can hear your outrage at scientists being questioned at all. Many representatives of the warmist industry reflect this same outrage - how dare you question authority.

I'm sure alchemists in the 18th century felt the same way - these were guys at the top of their science, the best available, they wrote papers they formed societies.

We may find in years to come, that your entire climate science area is wrong, that the way you do things is wrong. (we might not)

Yes, climate is complex, yet you all portray this arrogance that you actually know all about it - clearly you do not, and the layman's response is to question your forecasting ability and then you all look like a bunch of rabbits.

There are questions skeptics continue to ask, that are unanswered, that are glossed over by lofty comments of conspiracies and oil company paid comments. Utter rubbish, even if that were true, you still have not answered the underlying questions relating CO2 to rising temperature.

The attraction to forecast rising temperatures when they are rising naturally is obvious, the panic sets in when the temperatures drop or even wobble and you can't explain them.

The guy from WUWT is in Australia, all he did was check sites, now I see qanda lambastes him for it, for fact checking, is that out of embarrassment, that scientists didn't realize their raw data was coming from corrupted sites - another reason why climate science is under doubt.

Skeptics want these questions answered, arguing from the POV of authority is not scientific, it is more in keeping with religion, get facts and not facts cross checked by your mates - climate science has overstepped, is not as knowledgeable about its subject as it makes out, is clearly in need of a big clean up.

Fraccy... the Daily show...I saw that.. I LOVED it :)

Stewart has a tremendous reserach team.. you must try Glenn Beck..(who Stewart mocked) but here's the thing.

When Beck says "Under these new laws, electricity prices will skyrocket"
the very next thing he shows is Obama saying "Under our cap and trade laws.. electricity prices will skyrocket" (as in..video)

I love Beck and I love Stewart.

Hey..can I offer you a few options in my company ?

NOW..I control not only the INPUT side of Carbon trading.. through my massive shareholding in Climate Exchange..but I've just bought 23,000,000+ shares in the OUTPUT side.. (offset business)

In fact.. I and my hedge fund investors are going to be unspeakably RICH RICH RICH out of all this, I can see it now.. new upmodel lear jet... hmm bigger house.... all kinds of 'goodies' that most ordinary folks just dream and drool about.

We'll allocate a significant amount of funding to furthering the magnificent work of my "Alliance for Climate Protection" and their efforts to persuade the gullible public of the need for Cap and TRADE..so your investment would be safe :)

PROTAGORUS... you mention Richard Linzden....peer reviewed etc.

read it and weep!

QUOTE (Wiki)
In a 2009 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen points out that the earth was just emerging from the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century and concludes that it is "not surprising" to see warming after that. He goes on to state that the IPCC claims were...
“ "...based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."
UNQUOTE.

BAH..I hate it when people threaten my economic interests.. Linzden might soon have an 'accident'.

You say "5 climate scientists are hardly a consensus" but 30,000 in the USA is closer..... look it up.

CARBON TRAAAAAAAADING is the scam...not 'global warming'..

SIMPLE SOLUTION .. small tax on our electricity bills.. subsidise Solar Panels/Grid connect inverters....DONE!

OZANDY.. here is an honesty test.. do you support 'Carbon TRADING' ?

We have a nice crowd of hecklers, with not a relevant fact between them, but plenty of pointless nonsense. We even have an allegation that I have something to do with the oil industry.

How about one of you come up with any science which shows that human emissions have any measureable effect on global warming?

That has to be the starting point, for any assertion that anthropogenic warming should be considered as anything but a scam.

The patent dishonesty of the alarmists was the motivation I had to look at AGW, starting with Naomi Oreskes, who, very early in the scam, came up with the ludicrous proposition that there was a consensus of scientists, on global warming.

The prime motivation of a group primate, is to gain approval of the group. If an attitude or approach is shown to be accepted by the group, then that is the most important motivation for acceptance by a group member. If a person is convinced of a group attitude, the first reaction is to join it to gain acceptance. AGW scamsters simply lie about community acceptance of their baseless assertions, to motivate others to support them.

Truth and conscious thought come last, if they arise at all. The immediate reaction, of a person, which may never be followed by any other consideration, is to act in the way which gains acceptance by the group.

Benny Peiser quickly showed that her research was flawed, but the alarmists continue to push the ridiculous notion, of the consensus, because it is successful. The lies have had such effect that there is still a majority in the community, who accept the baseless AGW assertion.

You all have conscious minds, which, if exercised, can give consideration to the basis for AGW. You will not find any scientific basis for it, despite the billions spent on fruitless attempts to establish such a base. The fraudsters have successfully manipulated the group mind, and as this article shows, are now maneuvering for underdog status.

They understand manipulation of the community, but have no scientific backing for their assertions.

Interesting that not a single warmer is prepared to have the science tested? This I might add is the very science that convinced you in the first place.

One has to wonder why the skeptics are willing to have their perceptions challenged and potentially proved wrong, yet the warmers refuse to have their perspectives tested by science?

It’s not that there is any fear that the science, if reviewed might not hold up even for scientists is it? It’s all someone else’s fault isn’t it?

It’s only a suggestion for goodness sake. What is so terrible about that? Have you become so reactionary that even a content free “suggestion” is described as spin and deceit?

If we had a scientific means of testing for the existence of God, agnostics would support it but I doubt that any religion would. Why? because it’s a matter of faith not fact. Refusal to accept a review and testing of the AGW science is likewise an issue of faith and not science.

How desperate must you be to reject scientific testing of the very science that sustains you

Ozandy:” Having my co-workers being accused of outright fraud when working with some of the most diligent, professional workers I've ever had the pleasure to work with is somewhat annoying.”

Put an end to it Ozandy.

Post a reference to just one scientific study which supports the assertion that human emissions contribute in any measureable way to global warming, and it will all stop.

Otherwise find a business that is not based on fraud

“Otherwise find a business that is not based on fraud”

Leo Lane – To date you have provided the reader with flawed, misleading or irrelevant information. To date, you have proved nothing except your duplicity. To date you have ignored any responses to your posts which may expose your dodgy strategies and impede your agenda.

Your apparent delusion that Benny Peiser’s attack on Oreske proves that A/climate change is a myth is hilarious particularly since Peiser lectures in social anthropology & sport sociology.

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

In addition and in regard to his critique of Oreskes, he subsequently admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was not peer-reviewed and was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Furthermore, on 12 October 2006, he advised ABC’s Media Watch that:

“I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.

“I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is (sic) agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.”

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

“The lies have had such effect that there is still a majority in the community, who accept the baseless AGW assertion.”

Is that so Leo Lane and what conclusions do you think any sane person should arrive at on climate change after being force-fed the “lies” and “baseless assertions” you perpetuate?

You really are fact challenged Protagoras. Benny Peiser never withdrew, as you assert. This lie was propagated on Wikipedia.. Lawrence Solomon attempted to correct it, and found that as fast as he retyped, Wikipedia changed the article back. These are the tactics which have discredited the alarmists, and particularly Naomi Oreskes. Obviously, you have no scientific study to base the AGW assertions.

You refer us to what Benny said in 2006 before information about the methods of the IPCC and the alarmists became widely known. It is now clear that the non scientifically based IPCC assertion cannot be sustained, and only ever had the backing of 5 scientists.

The best that the IPCC have contributed is the unscientific statement that scientists consider it “very likely”, that human emissions contribute to global warming.

Settled, peer reviewed science of July 2009, makes it 100% unlikely, in the real world, outside the corrupt world of the IPCC and its East Anglia miscreants. In fact only 5 unconflicted scientists support this unscientific guess.

As you will see, Karin G, Loxton, the impotently frothing and grossly inaccurate Protagoras and, inevitably, the incorrigible and clueless qanda, always avoid the question of the complete lack of a scientific base for the assertion of AGW. They attack people, as they do not have any idea of presentation of a point of view on the issues.

I am not sure what argument ALGOREisRICH is putting, but we can thank him for the reference to 30,000 scientists “more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.”

http://whatthecrap.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/30000-scientists-rejecting-anthropomorphic-global-warming-hypothesis/

So against the 5 scientists who back the unscientific assertion that AGW is “very likely” we have over 31,000 who have put their name to a refutation of the IPCC’s nonsensical claim.

While it is inarguable that the climate is continuing to change, I challenge the suggestion that this is "ENTIRELY" due the effect of Homo Sapiens Sapiens on the planet, or even that we are a "Major" contributing factor.

It is a fact that the Earth goes through cycles of Ice Ages and has been doing so since before time began. The arrogance of scientists in suggesting that we are capable of affecting, one way or the other, a serious change in that is incredible (not taking into account the clowns who faked data when it didn't fit their hypotheses).

Yes, I disapprove of untrammeled pollution, but that is mainly due to its other effects, acid rain, etc.

But the fact remains that what gives the industries leading the counter-charge to the whole "global warming bandwagon" is the obdurate refusal of those who should know better to concede that our impact is not the major cause of the change in conditions over the last two centuries, if it were, how to explain the massive changes over the last two hundred thousand years?

That is the difficulty when something like this becomes a cause celebre, people with little to no knowledge grab it, then vigorously defend their position, without being able to concede an inch, because they don't know enough about the facts or even the position they are defending.

Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, some species will be unable to keep up with the pace of that change and will become locally or entirely extinct, but that is nature (it is what happened to the megafauna and the dinosaurs ffs).

Continuing to spout the untenable argument that we are solely at fault (or even responsible) for this, simply gives ammunition to those who continue to advocate environmentally irresponsible Corporate Behavior. If people want to talk about the changing environment, perhaps they should do so without the ego, the emotion and all the rest of the baggage.

Using junk science and fabricated evidence to establish the 'facts', harms the cause of those seeking to make corporations environmentally responsible.

"You really are fact challenged Protagoras. Benny Peiser never withdrew, as you assert. This lie was propagated on Wikipedia.”

Leo Lane - Only a freak with one half of one sensory neuron would confuse the ABC's Media Watch with Wikipedia so if the freak’s cap fits, wear it:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

“…..because they don't know enough about the facts or even the position they are defending.”

Touche Custard and one must ask if you know enough about climate change facts also?

Paleontology points to climate change without human influence — the Permo-Triassic extinction (great warming) — the Paleocene Thermal Maximum (sudden warming) and succeeding Early Eocene Thermal Maximum —the gradual Oligo-Miocene cooling — the gradual coolings and sudden warmings of the Pleistocene including the associated impacts of volcanism.

Similar to anthropogenic aerosols and carbon emissions, volcanoes impact climate change.

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor followed by carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide .

Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).

Human activities were responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 (Le Quéré et al., 2009.)

The global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 123 to 378 million metric tons per year [Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001] Source: USGS

And despite Ian Plimer’s fallacious nonsense, the current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than the range of estimates for all global volcanic CO2 emissions. Catch on?

“Using junk science and fabricated evidence to establish the 'facts', harms the cause of those seeking to make corporations environmentally responsible.”

I'm in total agreement Custard, particularly with the following in mind:

Greed + Incompetence + Obfuscation + A Belief in Free Market Efficiency = DISASTER

PROTAGORAS

rave on all you want about the 'reality' of "Climate change"... of course it stands to reason that the more people..the more pollution.. etc.. the chances of a negative impact on the planet rise.

BUT.... the solution is NOT NOT NOT....Cap and TRADE laws.

The solution is careful management of a lot of our behavior, and a very simple solution to our CO2 etc emmissions.

TRADE.....of carbon emmission..."that" is the huge scam of the century.

The primary outcome is "Making me richer and more powerful" along with my network of co-collaborators.

NO NO NO...no Cap and TRADE! ! !

NO NO NO...no Emissions TRADING laws. ! ! !

There are toooo many vested political interests in that pie.

-Bob Carr (Envex carbon trading company)
-Al Gore (Generation Investements/Chicago Climate Exchange)
-Kathy Zoy (Shares in Smart meter company Landice and Gyr)
-Maurice Strong (UN "mr environment" a director of the Chicago Climate Exchange)

and many many others.

A BETTER SOLUTION
Small carbon tax on all of us...leading directly to Solar Panel/Grid Connect inverters for every home.

NO MONEY MAKING MIDDLE MEN!

(apologies to Poirot for 'loud' :)

Er, Protagoras, warming is but one of several theories to explain the Permo-Triassic extinction, and not the most satisfactory, so making the categorical statement that the Permo-Triassic extinction was due to 'great warming' is more than a little disingenuous.

After all, it's not good science to take an unproven hypothesis and state that 'the science is settled', is it?

Clownfish... in view of your comments, I hope you and everyone else will dig their heels in against Cap and TRADE laws.. which are intended to benefit political/corporate networks more than fix the planet.

Are you aware of that vast and well connected network ?

Don't vote Green
Don't vote Labour

For Australia's sake.

Clownfish – who are you to hypothesise? A nobody! Who am I to hypothesise? Nobody, and that’s why I glean my information from the world’s most eminent palaeontologists. I suggest you do likewise since the most recent hypotheses emerging from today’s extensive research implicate carbon perturbations in past extinctions.

Only industry deviants, industry parasites, creationists and ignoramuses would trivialise the current unprecedented rapidity of atmospheric carbon emissions from human activity:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/april/prehistoric-mass-extinction-042710.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/about/shortcourses/shortcourse08.php

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223130549.htm

http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html

“There are toooo many vested political interests in that pie.” Algoreisrich - What you actually mean is that carbon mitigation might impede your selfish vested interests!

The debate on climate change is the result of the environmental and white collar crimes committed by industrial and financial barons (the clones of Charles Ponzi) in the ‘free’ market, the think tank whores that support them and the bribery of corrupt politicians.

But 'free' markets for whom? The industrial and multi-national corporations who are bludging off the environment by means of corruption, fraudulence, vandalism, cruelty, graft and unscrupulousness!

A few come to mind – guilty of crimes against the environment and humanity:

Bernie Madoff and the rest of Wall Street, BHP Billiton, Exxon, Rio Tinto, Barrick Gold, Chevron, Allan Hawkins – Equitorp, Brian Burke, Alan Bond, Christopher Skase, Monsanto and Dow Chemicals et al (crimes against humanity and biodiversity), Don Blakenship - Massey Energy, BP, Shell, James Inhofe, Steve Milloy (fake scientist), CEI, and Professor Patrick Michaels (sucking off the oil teat).

Then there's the American Petroleum Institute, Steve McIntyre, Marc Morano (professional douche bag), Bjorn Lomborg (serial liar), Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, Heartland Inst. (all tobacco shills sucking off the corporate teat), Ian Plimer,(remorseless fraud), the hysterical Toad of Toad Hall (aka Monckton) and more.

The industrial barons and industrial whores have had every opportunity to cease the carnage they commit yet they resort to fraud, unscrupulousness and chicanery.

A ‘command and control’ regulatory system and the ‘polluter pays principle’ needs to be enforced or the frontline cadavers, their greed-induced parasites and the rest of humanity will have to pay for it one way or another. Get it?

Protagoras,
I've been staying out of this one, but I'm cheering you on the sidelines!

A great effort, on gratuitous, pointless, vilification and lies, Protagoras.

You conveniently overlook the fact that all that is required from you, or any of the alarmist backers contributing baseless nonsense to this thread, is a reference to one peer reviewed study from reputable scientists giving a basis for asserting that human emissions contribute in any measureable way to global warming.

If you cannot do that, then stop wasting everyone’s time, making a fool of yourself, talking about everything but the topic, and giving irrelevant references.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion of AGW.

The past grubby and futile efforts of Naomi Oreskes are well known, and seeing her name on the article should make you aware that, to be correct and honest in your view, you simply have to align yourself with the opposite of what the article says.

Leo Lane,
maybe take a look at this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html

it should be dumbed-down enough even for dip-sticks, such as your good self, who just can't find the good oil.

Of course you know damn well that science acknowledges all, even miniscule, doubts about it's findings, which you lot represent as flawed data. As though anyone can guarantee even that the sun will come up tomorrow! Science has to deal with empirical probabilities in the absence of absolute knowledge. This is shrewd economics compared to the reckless, indeed cynical, gambling of the house you lot are engaged in.
I look forward to the next IPCC report, and the next campaign from you lot to discredit it. He who laughs last will have nothing to laugh about!

Read again what I requested, Squeers

“a reference to one peer reviewed study from reputable scientists giving a basis for asserting that human emissions contribute in any measureable way to global warming.”

I did not ask for a reference to a spurious site which publishes unscientific nonsense.

The IPCC discredited itself, by publishing mendacious assertions based on nonsense like World Wildlife Fund propaganda, and students’ essays.

Its statement on AGW is disgraceful. Pretending that its baseless assertion, that it is "very likely" that human emissions have an effect on global warming was scientifically backed, is the type of tactic expected of a third grade news reporter, or bottom of the barrel websites like Realclimate, or Skeptical science.

There is peer reviewed published science, which demonstrates that all warming is accounted for from natural sources, leaving no room for any assertion of AGW.

Update yourself, Squeers. It is years since Gore and the IPCC had sensible people fooled. Why do you wish to be on the side of the ignorant, and shifty?

Settle down, for starters I am not suggesting for a moment that Corporations should not be held responsible for their sins (actually, I'd go further and implement PERSONAL, financial and legal responsibility for environmental and other corporate crimes).

But I am saying that letting emotion lead one to stand foursquare behind so-called "science" that is derived from asserting a conclusion then seeking evidence to prove it, harms everyone who seeks to bring about environmental responsibility.

The FACTS are that our climate has always changed, a minor contributor is the massive fires and the airborne pollution that they cause as the climate heats up. Those fires exceed by some serious magnitude the output of industry. But even they are made to look pitiful beside the sulfur-aerosols and ash-clouds that are the result of volcanic eruptions.

It is established science, based upon coral cores, etc., that the "rim of fire" has been almost cyclical insofar as every 400 years or so there is a period of intense volcanic and seismic activity in our area. We are now at the end of that 400 years, and guess what?

If people could just tone down the rhetoric, then there would be less space for denial of corporate responsibility, however, with things the way they are now - Corporations are charged with crimes that CANNOT be proved, thus they escape the consequences of the Crimes that could have been proved in a less emotionally charged environment.

THAT is not good for anyone and is certainly not good for the planet. For those involved, please, try and restrict yourselves to only stating that which is proven or able to be proved, making outrageous claims merely sidelines you as some form of hysteric (and the spin machine will ensure you are sidelined as such).

“Update yourself, Squeers.”

Squeers – I’d say that order’s a bit rich when the only link Leo Lane can provide is a crap one: “whatthecrap" where it appears he's only just discovered the Oregon petition (’31,000’ scientists) that's been circulating since 1998/9.

One can speculate that Leo Lane trolls under a bridge and smells more like a terrestrial polecat than a Kryptonian woman – ‘up, up and away’……hopefully?

31,000 scientists sounds impressive, but considering there are about 23 million scientists and engineers in the U.S., that is 0.13% of them – a mere drop in the bucket. Moreover, many of those who signed were misled and many were not scientists at all and certainly not in the field of climate science – dentists, nutritionists and even Ginger Spice, Perry Mason, IP Freely and Michael J Fox.

Many of those contacted said they’d never signed the petition but these clowns never flinch from an opportunity to scheme and plot no matter how sordid.

Strange that the fossil fuel shills who spend so much time heckling climate scientists and spruiking in the media and on the public speaking circuit, have no scientific credentials, never attend scientific conferences or have any material published in the ISI peer-reviewed scientific journals - think McIntyre, Watts, Swizzle Eyes, Bolt et al.

Custard says of fires: “But even they are made to look pitiful beside the sulfur-aerosols and ash-clouds that are the result of volcanic eruptions………..For those involved, please, try and restrict yourselves to only stating that which is proven or able to be proved, making outrageous claims merely sidelines you as some form of hysteric.”

Custard – If you must insist on calling others hysterical, could you set an example and desist from peddling such hysterically dodgy information:

Global Sulphur Emissions:

Anthropogenic: 65.9%, Biomass: 2.5%, Dimethyl Sulphide (mainly from oceans): 18.2% and Volcanoes: 13.7%

"Corporations are charged with crimes that CANNOT be proved,"

Claptrap Custard and you speak with forked tongue. Ongoing litigations abound; crimes ARE legally proven, corporations pay the petty cash fines (or none at all) and then continue abusing an outraged planet.

Protagoras,

Invective such as "The debate on climate change is the result of the environmental and white collar crimes committed by industrial and financial barons (the clones of Charles Ponzi) in the ‘free’ market, the think tank whores that support them and the bribery of corrupt politicians."

Would lead most people to believe that whilst you passionately believe in climate change and that big business is behind it, they would also believe that you are slightly unhinged.

While I believe that action needs to be taken against global warming, I cringe at the ever more extreme doomsday predictions that get published, and the extreme calls of the greens for immediate and drastic action.

The end result of this is that the general public have been desensitized and have become somewhat skeptical. This makes fertile ground for the anti action group to sow seeds of doubt.

While trying to hammer the message through with a sledge hammer, Joe public has stopped listening.

Shadow Minister, it is as you say .. we skeptics just sit back and watch as people self destruct and bring all manner of ridicule upon themselves. Nothing further needs to be said - self evidently some people have gone beyond hysterics and have become, or always were "unhinged", their desperation now has lowered the veil.

BTW - you'll now come under fire from various warmists (qanda) for not defining what type of "skeptic" people are becoming - have you seen the efforts to redefine "skeptic", another laughable ploy that the public reject as idiocy.

Doomsayers, soothsayers, sages and fortune tellers all predicting the future and mostly hysterical when their predictions don't come true, some are suitable cases for treatment.

Amicus,
you lot are not sceptics, as I keep saying, you're minimidianists.
A sceptic "maintains the impossibility of real knowledge of any kind" (OED). Scientific hypotheses are always provisional and perpetually tested in this true sceptical sense. A 'weakness' you lot don't share, but in fact exploit.
Are you 'sceptical' about your scepticism over AGW?

There's certainly a lot of froth and bubble here, isn't there.

But very little that advances the discussion, one way or another.

When we reach the level of Protagoras' insight...

>>One can speculate that Leo Lane trolls under a bridge and smells more like a terrestrial polecat than a Kryptonian woman – ‘up, up and away’……hopefully?<<

...we know that we have reached a point where facts have taken a back seat to gratuitous invective, and are correspondingly harder to find.

On which point, it is most interesting to me that Leo Lane's request - a rather polite request, in my view - has remained unanswered for so long.

Leo Lane asks for...

>>...a reference to one peer reviewed study from reputable scientists giving a basis for asserting that human emissions contribute in any measureable way to global warming.<<

When I first read the request, I expected a flood of "look, here you go" responses to appear, and was a little surprised that this did not occur.

It is an important debate.

It is not about faith, or belief, or good vs.evil. It is ultimately about economics.

Is there a problem, and can it be fixed with money? If so, let's be very clear about what we are sacrificing, and what we are gaining.

The message clearly is not convincing, right at the moment. And relating someone's views to their body odour does not in fact make the story any more so.

Shadow Minister

>> While I believe that action needs to be taken against global warming, I cringe at the ever more extreme doomsday predictions that get published, and the extreme calls of the greens for immediate and drastic action.

The end result of this is that the general public have been desensitized and have become somewhat skeptical. This makes fertile ground for the anti action group to sow seeds of doubt.

While trying to hammer the message through with a sledge hammer, Joe public has stopped listening. <<

Very well said!

And to fulfill the Amicus prophecy - all scientists are sceptics, either by training or by some innate capability ... they are sceptics in the scientific sense.

I agree with you entirely and do understand why Joe Public becomes "sceptical". However, that does not mean they have the ability, nor indeed the resources, to test theories or hypothesises, as some here say they want to do - in any field of the 'climate sciences'.

Yes, many "sceptics" don't want to believe the globe is warming, but they do so based on either their political ideology, their religious doctrinnaire, or their socio-economic standing - not by doing atmospheric physics, or biogeochemistry, et al.

For what it's worth, I don't want to believe that humanity has been complicit in significantly impacting the Earth's climate either. However, I have the opportunity and ability to do the real science - and what I conclude is not comforting.

Yep, the 'alarmists' do need to pull their head in, and the 'deniers' do need to extract theirs from the sand. The science IS telling us that the planet is "squealling" (look it up) but it is not about to end in 2100. Nevertheless, it would help if everybody worked together to solve a common problem - unfortunately, it ain't happening (for the above reasons). My guess is that this is why some people are getting a tad anxious - we do have a relatively small window in time.

I'd agree with Mark Lawson though, the SRES is flawed - pesky econometricians!

Pericles

May I suggest that you go to google's 'Advanced Scholar' and search "climate sensitivity". You may wish to limit your search results to 2010. However, for the gammut, leave the dates open.

Most so called 'sceptics' don't do this. Certainly, no matter how many times they ask the same question, they are never satisfied with the answers - they don't appear to want to listen. That is probably why we get sick of answering to the likes of Leo - he refuses to move on to being part of a solution.

I must have missed something, qanda. You say my question has been answered many times.

The allegation by the alarmists is that human emissions contribute to global warming. If that is not so, then all the fuss over a paltry warming of seven tenths of a degree in 100 odd years is pointless.

It is probably pointless anyway, because the world has been warming and cooling for millions of years, and life would not be here if it were otherwise.

My question is, where is the science which gives support to the assertion that anthropogenic activity has any measureable effect on global warming?

I have asked it many times, on this and other threads, and am amazed that you have seen it answered. I never have, You have never answered it, and you make the ridiculous assertion that I have been answered many times.

You might understand why you have in the past, been referred to as “pea brained”, qanda.

What I have noticed is that posts in reply to my question are full of information about anything but the scientific basis of the belief that human emissions have any demonstrable effect on global warming. We know the reason for this. There is no such science.

Protagoras says that 31,000 scientists supporting the refutation of the IPCC’s unscientific assertion of “very likely”, in respect of AGW is “not many”. There are 5 scientists who support the IPCC assertion. I wonder how he would quantify that support?

I am a Realist, not a denier.

Naomi Oreskes, and the substance deficient hecklers, here, are the deniers. They deny the science which shows that all warming is accounted for, from natural sources, and there is no room for the assertion of anthropogenic contribution to global warming

If anyone is interested in the science, please go to this site:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdf

There's probably a good reason for this, qanda.

>>Most so called 'sceptics' don't do this. Certainly, no matter how many times they ask the same question, they are never satisfied with the answers - they don't appear to want to listen.<<

But the question was not "how many articles on climate sensitivity can you find with one Google search."

The answer to that is, in Google's own words "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550,000"

I did actually have a look at a couple of the articles that came top of the list. I found their approach to be gratifyingly scientific, and totally honest.

But fundamentally lacking in certainty, of any kind.

From the preamble to the first (presumably most "popular") article:

"Many of the discrepancies in the responses of different models can be traced to differences in the simulations of present-day climate. The choice of convective parametrization appears to influence the sensitivity of the simulated response in the tropics..." etc etc.

It is that honesty, of course, that prevents them from re-stating any of their conclusions in layman's terms, that might be used in any sort of guide to policy-making.

That would be asking them for certainty. They are in the business of experimentation, estimation, and scholarly caveat.

Terms such as "if other factors remain unchanged" abound (taken from the second-most-popular article) - as indeed they should - in order to be quite clear that the scope of their experiment was limited to that which they could control.

Leo Lane's question was, once again, that we are shown "a reference to one peer reviewed study from reputable scientists giving a basis for asserting that human emissions contribute in any measureable way to global warming".

If there is no such study, shouldn't we be told?

But you see, Protagoras, I *wasn't* hypothesising. All I was doing was pointing out that there are several competing hypotheses trying to explain the Permo-Triassic extinction ranging from bolides to methane hydrate release, of which 'great warming' is but one. So, to state categorically, as you did, that the Permo-Triassic extinction *was* due to 'great warming' is, as I said, more than a little disingenuous.

If you really had gleaned your information from palaeontologists, you'd know that, and presumably be honest enough to admit it.

But then, doubt doesn't win debates, does it? And I suspect that winning the debate is more important to you than strict adherence to 'normal truth', as Mike Hulme might say.

“When we reach the level of Protagoras' insight...” (Pericles)

“…they would also believe that you are slightly unhinged.” (Shadow Minister)

Gentlemen - You are particularly devious this morning which illustrates the sordid depths to which denialists (as opposed to sceptics) will stoop. Your hypocritical omission reads:

“As you will see, Karin G, Loxton, the impotently frothing and grossly inaccurate Protagoras and, inevitably, the incorrigible and clueless qanda, always avoid the question of the complete lack of a scientific base for the assertion of AGW.” (Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 19 June 2010 4:35:18 PM)

Oops - now as they say in the movies: “Take me to your leader”:

‘Lord’ Monckton: “Warmists are Nazi youth, bedwetting minnies, crypto-communists and the New Vorld Order.” Oh dear and your hero falsely boasted that he’d received an $80,000 libel settlement from the Guardian Newspaper. This lying fool keeps threatening those who oppose his pseudo-scientific claims with libel suits yet none have materialised.

And on it goes - an abusive “denial-a-palooza,” - the conspiracy theorists, industry parrots, puzzle-makers and ‘scientists’ for hire. At the Heartland crankfest in 2008 there was a large gathering of people. Poor little fossilised Davids battling the Goliath of the environmental establishment.

When a Heartland organizer made an announcement asking all the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so.

Yet the denalist plays dumb when presented with others' questions or proposals (see Leo Lane). One is sometimes amazed at how smart an industry lobbyist can be until a proposal is presented they don't want to answer!

Climate Scientist and sceptic, John Christy conceded that "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn't been increased (sic) in the past century."

“the complete lack of a scientific base for the assertion of AGW.” Tried research Leo Lane? Are you and your partners-in-propaganda, dumb or chronically dyslexic? http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4911

Squeers.. as a consumer I can assure you I am not a minimalist
But I am entitled to be sceptical about you....

Imagining myself “free”

90% of what we matters in our lives exists only between our ears

Obviously, my imagination believes I am free.

It also explains why you imagine you are enslaved.

It also reflects how the optimist sees the glass half full and the pessimist sees it as half empty.

I would not change my life as an optimist for your ....... sense of contradiction

Grant Musgrove the notion of “internalizing environmental externalities on public and private balance sheets”

Fine words... now I wonder what they actually mean, when most people, whilst knowing the term “balance sheet” have no idea what it actually means, I include many executives and all politicians in that statement
But I would suggest it will make a hell of a mess to the debt to equity ratio.
You see, people are not required to “understand” or be qualified to make public comment on things... and
Climate change is no different to book keeping in that regard.
I also see the term “Greed” being bandied around by a few here.... it is the way the inept denigrate the able, feeling that greed is the motive behind ambition, yet without ambition nothing ever happens
L:ikewise “Self interest” gets wrongly retitled “Selfishness”

But it is all just in the minds of the pessimists who, to be able to live with their own fear and inadequacies, label the capable as greedy and selfish.

Protagoras, that is a reference to another failed attempt to attack the real peer reviewed, settled science which shows that there is no room for the assertion of anthropogenic global warming.

The date of this article is 10 March 2010, and as at 22 March, publication of the refutation by McLean et al was being stalled by the Journal which ultimately published it. The window of opportunity to use this nonsense closed a long time ago. You are as usual, well behind the pack, Protagoras, and completely out of date.

Even if this clumsy effort were successful, which it, of course, was not, it does not give any scientific basis, for assertion of any measureable effect of human emissions, on global warming. It would simply mean that neither side had any scientific basis.

The realists do not need a scientific base, to point out that the alarmists have no scientific basis for their assertion of AGW

You cannot be as stupid as you pretend, Protagoras, so this is just another pretence that you have an answer, in the hope that people are sick of looking up your references, which you invariably pretend to be something they are not.

Again you have produced no scientific basis for the assertions of the alarmists, and drawn attention to the failure of the usual suspects, from East Anglia to make any impression with their attempts to discredit real, honest science.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, just a weak, unscientific “very likely” by the now discredited IPCC.

Anyone who looked at the reference that I gave above, would be aware that the Climategate gang have made every effort to mislead, but will not take the step of falsely asserting that there is any science to support the claim of AGW. They are only prepared to deny reality.

“So, to state categorically, as you did, that the Permo-Triassic extinction *was* due to 'great warming' is, as I said, more than a little disingenuous.”

Clownfish – That's a lie since I said no such thing and your manipulation of my information is typical of what one must endure from denialists. The Permian-Triassic extinction is commonly known as the ‘great dying’ or the ‘great warming’ but you would have no idea.

If you object to the terminology, confront Bruce Tiffney, Professor of Palaeobiology at the U of California who I quoted in the links I provided as substantiation and which you've conveniently ignored or can’t fathom. I’m sure Tiffney would appreciate your assault, you being the 'expert' and all.

If anyone is looking for indisputable proof of man’s manipulation of the climate look no further than anthropogenic aerosols despite Curmudgeon’s curious dismissal of this serious phenomenon. A research paper examined at length a huge cloud of industrial air pollution and dust that now covers over 10 million square kilometres of the Southeast Asian region, which is called the Asian brown cloud (ABC).

‘Additional anthropogenic brown clouds are forming over eastern China; northeastern Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Myanmar; Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam; sub-Saharan Africa southward into Angola, Zambia and Zimbabwe; and the Amazon Basin in South America and have formed over the eastern US and Europe.’

The ABC is also impacting the climate in Australia and these light-absorbing carbon particle pollutants' warming effect is around 40-70 percent of that of carbon dioxide and even at concentrations below five parts per billion, such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for much of the Arctic warming.

You are pathetically obtuse Leo Lane. Carter, McLean, de Freitas fudged the data fullstop! The link I provided was established by the eminent marine researcher Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who together with Professor Terry Hughes and Professor John Pandolfi were ranked in the world’s top 20 by the international science citation analysts Thomson Reuters and ScienceWatch, for the decade 1999-2009.

They too have to endure the unmitigated swill you and your fraudulent oil-shilling scientists perpetuate!

Pericles

How much "certainty" do you want? If it is absolute 100% certainty, you are not going to get it - science doesn't work like that, you know that. You should also be aware that scientists are saying things like "90 - 95% likely that humanity's contribution to the current global warming is about 80%" (search 'attribution').

The point is, as more research and testing is done on climate sensitivity and attribution (and it is) the more robust the conclusions are becoming. This is not to say that the science is certain, settled or absolute. Indeed, it will just take one alternative robust explanation for the current global warming "consensus" to be over-turned. This has not been done, despite contrarian links to so called denier' blog-sites. Moreover, if you take CO2 out of the science, no amount of natural variation can explain the recent warming period we have been experiencing, none.

Sure, we don't know everything - but we do know a heluvalot.

Fortunately, scientists are a pedantic lot - crossing the 'i's and dotting the 't's - they have to be, their life's work relies on their professional conduct and integrity (as we are all aware of). Unfortunately, they are not very good at explaining quite often complex science to laymen in layman's terms (when they do, it is often taken out of context or spun for a particular agenda).

It is the politicians and economists that will decide the policies addressing 'climate change' - based ostensibly not on the science, but on how it impacts the short term. The pronouncements ranging from it's "crap" to a "moral" imperative, and everything else in between is not helpful.

As we saw in Copenhagen, the politicians are in a bun fight on how and when to tackle the issues - they were not debating the science.

cont'd Pericles

Pericles

As to Leo's question, I surmise he probably doesn't understand any of the peer reviewed papers referenced in AR4 (WG1 - Scientific Basis) on climate sensitivity or attribution of global warming. I doubt he has read them because if he has, then it discounts his assertion and challenges his oft repeated question.

Nevertheless, just because he/anyone can't be bothered to read AR4 (or actually read the papers referenced) doesn't mean they don't exist, they do. Unfortunately, so called "sceptics" don't want to venture into the science that would, also, discount their proclaimed scepticism. Put simply, a real sceptic would actually read everything they're sceptical about - they don't.

I actually don't have the time to read all 1,550,000 papers on the topic that you kindly pointed out for me, qanda.

I was hoping you could point me towards a form of peer-reviewed, science-based executive summary.

Is there one?

If there isn't, we are going to have to believe the politicians, or the Greens, or the oil industry, or the carbon trading industry.

Why should we have to choose?

That is right qanda, you have 5 scientists put their name to AGW being “very likely”.

Originally it was seven, but two had a rethink, and withdrew their support. No scientist supports the assertion that there is scientific proof of AGW.

31.487 scientists have signed a petition about the absence of scientific evidence that human release of gases will cause catastrophic warming, and about the scientific evidence of the benefits of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Why do you refer us to AR4? The question was where, is there a peer reviewed study, by reputable scientists, setting out a scientific basis for the assertion of AGW.

It is not in AR4. Just answer the question qanda, about where there is such a study.

The simple answer is nowhere, because it does not exist. Stop taking up space with non-answers.

What does “challenges his question” mean, qanda? The question challenges you, to give a straight and honest answer, which appears to be beyond your capacity.

What is “discounts his assertion” supposed to convey? My assertion is that you have never answered the question. That is a simple fact, and is not discounted in any way. It is fully confirmed by the unresponsive nonsense in your post.

Pericles:

"I was hoping you could point me towards a form of peer-reviewed, science-based executive summary.

Is there one?"

I like how you wrote that so straight, very droll Pericles

“The date of this article is 10 March 2010, and as at 22 March, publication of the refutation by McLean et al was being stalled by the Journal which ultimately published it. The window of opportunity to use this nonsense closed a long time ago. You are as usual, well behind the pack, Protagoras, and completely out of date.”

“Completely out of date?” March 2010? Errr….Well I’ve had a big day Leo Lane. Do you mean that McLean has published a refutation in the Journal of Geophysical Research to Foster’s refutation of McLean et al? Where is the link? And why are you so impressed when Carter and de Freitas (and his brother) are well known for their shenanigans and wear the leper’s bell and have no standing in the climate science community?

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky reminds us that “Mr McLean’s published affiliation is given as “Applied Science Consultants” in Croydon Victoria. This entity does not have a web page. This entity does not have a recorded phone number. This entity does not have an ABN and it is not registered as a business in Victoria.

”The author's home page can eventually be traced to Switzerland, where it identifies J D McLean as a "computer consultant and occasional travel photographer.

"According to the Australian National Library, no J D McLean has ever submitted a thesis for a research degree at any institution in Australia, for any program in any discipline.”

Tsk tsk Leo Lane - McLean has zero credentials and you’ve scraped the bottom of the barrel, haven’t you? Amidst your reams of jabberwocky and ad hominem, is that the best you can come up with?

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

In view of your lack of integrity I now believe that the proper thing for you to do is to prove to readers that the current anthropogenic carbon perturbations have no influence on climate. Please provide credible links to support your hypothesis as I have done.

Protagoras, Protagoras, like a 5 year old caught with paint all over his hands, you still insist, 'I didn't do it!'

Ahem ... 'Paleontology points to climate change without human influence — the Permo-Triassic extinction (great warming) ...' - Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 19 June 2010 6:29:59 PM.

Not 'possibly due to great warming', no hint that there may be competing hypotheses, simply a straight assertion that 'great warming' was the culprit in the Permo-Triassic extinction.

Oh, and I know all about 'The Great Dying': I have several rather nice fossils I've personally collected from that era. My local museum also has a very good permanent exhibit entitled 'The Great Dying'; it's certainly not called, nor does it mention, 'the great warming' - I think you might be confusing that with a 'Land Before Time' video you watched, once. ;)

Still, I'll grant you that you're always amusing, so do keep it up!

“Paleontology points to climate change without human influence — the Permo-Triassic extinction **(great warming) — the Paleocene Thermal Maximum (sudden warming) and succeeding Early Eocene Thermal Maximum —the gradual Oligo-Miocene cooling — the gradual coolings and sudden warmings of the Pleistocene including the associated impacts of volcanism.” (Protagoras)

Excerpt from “Climate and the evolution of Earth's terrestrial biota” Prof. Bruce Tiffney:

“we will touch on some high points of climate change — the Permo-Triassic extinction ** (great warming) — the Paleocene Thermal Maximum (sudden warming) and succeeding Early Eocene Thermal Maximum — The gradual Oligo-Miocene cooling — and if time permits the gradual coolings and sudden warmings of the Pleistocene. Recommended resources”

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/about/shortcourses/shortcourse08.php

Permian Triassic = great dying, great warming, elevated CO2 emissions - all appropriate. Why the anal retentiveness Clownfish? Had trouble during your potty training years? There is a strong suspicion though that you’re a creationist attached to the papacy of propaganda, whose favorite sport is speaking in tongues, stringing together quotations, carefully taking them out of context and attributing quotes to the wrong person to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among climate scientists or evolutionists.

And what has your intellectual contribution been to 'Global warming deniers and their proven strategy of doubt?' The usual shitstorm of absurdities.

Still can't admit that it's but one hypothesis of several, can you Protagoras?

Still, doubt never is the currency of the faithful, is it?

Your desperate flailing about Creationism was a right cackler - yes, I *would* be talking about my collection of Permian fossils if I was a Creationist, wouldn't I? The Creationists I've had many a letters-to-the-editor battles with would be quite surprised to find that I'm secretly one of them (ah! perhaps that's just my cover? You'll never know ...).

Still, it's par for the course with your modus operandi - get caught out making unwarranted assertions, so revert to the only defense you know: attack, no matter how ridiculous you make yourself look.

Still, at least we know where you're cutting and pasting some of your stuff from - it reminds me of the line in 'A fish called Wanda': 'Apes don't read philosophy!' 'Yes they do, they just don't understand it!'

Then they throw poo at people, which has been about the sum total of *your* contribution to this discussion, or any other.

Clownfish,

"- I think you might be confusing that with a 'Land Before Time' video you watched, once. ;)"

ROFL

Protagonist.....you say:

”Algoreisrich - What you actually mean is that carbon mitigation might impede your selfish vested interests!

YES.... you got me! fair and square.... I am selfish..I want a lower electricity cost! I want a cleaner environment..yep..u dunit..I'm a selfish bloke.

But I believe my 'selfish' interest is also in the interests of a better cleaner planet and humanity in general.

I'm not a 'denialist' in the sense you mean.. though I have serious doubts about the reality of 'Global Warming' when the promotion of that idea makes a few people, including the UN's Mr Environment, Maurice Strong and the Greens Media Darling "me" (Al Gore) and various others (including George Soros) inREDDDDDIbly richhhhh beyond your wildest dreams or imagination.

Let's not forget that other word which goes along with 'rich'..it's "power"

POLITICS OF STEALTH.

Obama has just banned off shore drilling. Fact.
Obama says it is for the benefit of the environment. Fact.
OBAMA'S administration has just LOANED $2,000,000,000 to the Brazillian DEEEEEEEP water drilling company PETROGAS (which makes 15,000,000,000 profit) to assis them in DEEEEEP water drilling.

George SOROS is a major share holder/investor in PETROGAS.

The cost of banning off shore drilling in USA is $330,000,000/month in lost rig worker wages.

QUESTION......if Obama really cares for 'The Environment'...why does he facilitate much deeper 14,000 ft off shore drilling in BRAZIL..when he bans the BP rig at 5000 ft.?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Proto...it's allll about politics and money and power..

Obama on 'SNL' "OFFSHORE DRILLING in oURRRRR back yard is badddddd..but in Brazils its fine :)" *Imaginary skit*

SIMPLE SOLUTION... small carbon tax... direct subsidy for SOLAR panels/Grid Connect inverters. NO TRADING.

My interest ? none..I'm scared of heights. but if you want to go halves in a container load of quality chinese panels and THEN we would have an interest :)

Clownfish – you’re hilarious even if you are a troll and a wasted space. What you will find in several of my previous posts is the following quote:

"All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man does not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand of it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”

Problem being Clownfish, you wouldn’t know a VOC from a sock - it’s a no brainer – except for retards and useful idiots – go figure!

Now back on your potty chair – take a manual of environmental toxicology with you. Noooooo! Not for that you fool!

Protagoras, you do realise that the moving speech you quoted from Chief Seattle was actually made up by the scriptwriter for an environmental documentary, in 1971?

Unsurprising, really: what is perpetually cited as a moving call to respect Mother Gaia from a First Nation visionary is really the work of a dope smokin' hippy idealist. Then again, when you're dealing with the type of people who get their science from an organisation that quotes a mountaineering article as peer-reviewed science - and still gets its numbers arse-about - that's only to be expected.

And I'm sure your socks are *full* of VOCs.

Pericles

The search results of 1.5 million can obviously be reduced by filtering or applying more detailed search terms. The relevant chapters in AR4 will return the more up to date literature – bearing in mind that there has been 4 years of subsequent research.

What needs to be remembered is that ‘science' is not determined as in a court of law, despite the fact that some people would like it to be. On the contrary and as anyone who does science knows, it is ‘judged’ by weight of evidence in the peer review process.

That is what I was alluding to in my earlier post – there is vast literature supporting the conclusions of humanity’s role in the current period of global warming. While you may not get ‘one’ paper that is the ‘be all and end all’ to climate change, collectively they produce compelling evidence for our role in it. This 'evidence' dates back to before Svente Arhenius, and has been getting more robust ever since.

The following is a “form of peer-reviewed, science-based executive summary.” It is the Technical Summary of AR4’s Working Group I - "The Physical Science Basis"

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

You might also find this interesting, a “Good Practice Guidance Paper on Detection and Attribution Related to Anthropogenic Climate Change” – in preparation for AR5 as we speak.

http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/guidancepaper/IPCC_D&A_GoodPracticeGuidancePaper.pdf

Sorry, the links do take up bandwidth, the latter much less.

We need real leaders, not just politicians. As for power, control and vested interests - Joe Public is a pawn. In the end, we have to choose the direction we travel, and on current form - I am not optimistic.

I haven't posted for a while, but it's good to see that I was right in my first post - the denialists running around like meat ants in a frenzy - very busy, very heated, but ultimately pointless.

Thank you Protagoras, squeers and qanda for pursuing the debate, but you must realise that you can't convince people who are so set in their ways that they refuse to read the references you send them.

Quote - "I actually don't have the time to read all 1,550,000 papers on the topic". Maybe one or two then?

Clownish, Leo Lane, Pericles et al are not going to be swayed by mere facts.

What's more, their behaviour actually bears out the primary contention of the original article!

Actually Loxton, despite my ‘pea-brainedness’ ;-) I engage with Pericles because I think he’s genuine in his uncertainty about AGW. Besides, I have come to respect his views on other topics – whether I agree with them or not isn't really relevant here.

If other people can get anything out of the links then that is great but I agree, some people will never be swayed, because of their entrenched ideological or religious beliefs (Boazy and runner come to mind).

As to the original article, it’s worthwhile reading again – sorta puts things into perspective.

Leo Lane you keep asserting only 5 scientist assert AGW is happening! (paraphrased for brevity!
Please discount each of the following;
P. H. Gleick,* R. M. Adams, R. M. Amasino, E. Anders, D. J. Anderson, W. W. Anderson, L. E. Anselin, M. K. Arroyo, B. Asfaw, F. J. Ayala, A. Bax, A. J. Bebbington, G. Bell, M. V. L. Bennett, J. L. Bennetzen, M. R. Berenbaum, O. B. Berlin, P. J. Bjorkman, E. Blackburn, J. E. Blamont, M. R. Botchan, J. S. Boyer, E. A. Boyle, D. Branton, S. P. Briggs, W. R. Briggs, W. J. Brill, R. J. Britten, W. S. Broecker, J. H. Brown, P. O. Brown, A. T. Brunger, J. Cairns, Jr., D. E. Canfield, S. R. Carpenter, J. C. Carrington, A. R. Cashmore, J. C. Castilla, A. Cazenave, F. S. Chapin, III, A. J. Ciechanover, D. E. Clapham, W. C. Clark, R. N. Clayton, M. D. Coe, E. M. Conwell, E. B. Cowling, R. M Cowling, C. S. Cox, R. B. Croteau, D. M. Crothers, P. J. Crutzen, G. C. Daily, G. B. Dalrymple, J. L. Dangl, S. A. Darst, D. R. Davies, M. B. Davis, P. V. de Camilli, C. Dean, R. S. Defries, J. Deisenhofer, D. P. Delmer, E. F. Delong, D. J. Derosier, T. O. Diener, R. Dirzo, J. E. Dixon, M. J. Donoghue, R. F. Doolittle, T. Dunne, P. R. Ehrlich, S. N. Eisenstadt, T. Eisner, K. A. Emanuel, S. W. Englander, W. G. Ernst, P. G. Falkowski, G. Feher, J. A. Ferejohn, A. Fersht, E. H. Fischer, R. Fischer, K. V. Flannery, J. Frank, P. A. Frey, I. Fridovich, C. Frieden, D. J. Futuyma, W. R. Gardner, C. J. R. Garrett, W. Gilbert, R. B. Goldberg, W. H. Goodenough, C. S. Goodman, M. Goodman, P. Greengard, S. Hake, G. Hammel, S. Hanson, S. C. Harrison, S. R. Hart, D. L. Hartl, R. Haselkorn, K. Hawkes, J. M. Hayes, B. Hille, T. Hökfelt, J. S. House, M. Hout, D. M. Hunten, I. A. Izquierdo, A. T.

cont...

cont...
Jagendorf, D. H. Janzen, R. Jeanloz, C. S. Jencks, W. A. Jury, H. R. Kaback, T. Kailath, P. Kay, S. A. Kay, D. Kennedy, A. Kerr, R. C.Kessler, G. S. Khush, S. W. Kieffer, P. V. Kirch, K. Kirk, M. G. Kivelson, J. P. Klinman, A. Klug, L. Knopoff, H. Kornberg, J. E. Kutzbach, J. C. Lagarias, K. Lambeck, A. Landy, C. H. Langmuir, B. A. Larkins, X. T. Le Pichon, R. E. Lenski, E. B. Leopold, S. A. Levin, M. Levitt, G. E. Likens, J. Lippincott-Schwartz, L. Lorand, C. O. Lovejoy, M. Lynch, A. L. Mabogunje, T. F. Malone, S. Manabe, J. Marcus, D. S. Massey, J. C. McWilliams, E. Medina, H. J. Melosh, D. J. Meltzer, C. D. Michener, E. L. Miles, H. A. Mooney, P. B. Moore, F. M. M. Morel, E. S. Mosley-Thompson, B. Moss, W. H. Munk, N. Myers, G. B.

cont...

Nair, J. Nathans, E. W. Nester, R. A. Nicoll, R. P. Novick, J. F. O'Connell, P. E. Olsen, N. D. Opdyke, G. F. Oster, E. Ostrom, N. R. Pace, R. T. Paine, R. D. Palmiter, J. Pedlosky, G. A. Petsko, G. H. Pettengill, S. G. Philander, D. R. Piperno, T. D. Pollard, P. B. Price, Jr., P. A. Reichard, B. F. Reskin, R. E. Ricklefs, R. L. Rivest, J. D. Roberts, A. K. Romney, M. G. Rossmann, D. W. Russell, W.
J. Rutter, J. A. Sabloff, R. Z. Sagdeev, M. D. Sahlins, A. Salmond, J. R. Sanes, R. Schekman, J. Schellnhuber, D. W. Schindler, J. Schmitt, S. H. Schneider, V. L. Schramm, R. R. Sederoff, C. J. Shatz, F. Sherman, R. L. Sidman, K. Sieh, E. L. Simons, B. H. Singer, M. F. Singer, B. Skyrms, N. H. Sleep, B. D. Smith, S. H. Snyder, R. R. Sokal, C. S. Spencer, T. A. Steitz, K. B. Strier, T. C. Südhof, S. S. Taylor, J. Terborgh, D. H. Thomas, L. G. Thompson, R. T. Tjian, M. G. Turner, S. Uyeda, J. W. Valentine, J. S. Valentine, J. L. van Etten, K. E. van Holde, M. Vaughan, S. Verba, P. H. von Hippel, D. B. Wake, A. Walker, J. E. Walker, E. B. Watson, P. J. Watson, D. Weigel, S. R. Wessler, M. J. West-Eberhard, T. D. White, W. J. Wilson, R. V. Wolfenden, J. A. Wood, G. M. Woodwell, H. E. Wright, Jr., C. Wu, C. Wunsch, M. L. Zoback
All are members of the US Acadaemy of Science, some have PhD's (you might like to look up what that means about their credibility, training and expertise) and other than the 250 of them involved in a
conspiracy, they all support AGW and are capital VERY concerned about people such as yourself who are misleading the public!

Feel free to address each members lack of qualification!

For those few readers of OLO who are genuinely interested in "debate" please visit
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689

and make your own assessment.

PeterK I did read that and my assessment is that it is the usual whinging by a group who have found their "authority" is not being taken for granted and thus they feel threatened.

Any open letter that then denounces people who question them as "deniers!", is short of facts as usual and long on emotion.

"For those few readers of OLO who are genuinely interested in "debate" please visit.." so where's the debate, is this letter about debate Peter?

Certainly it's just a long whine .. no debate, the only other party mentioned gets no respect and are denounced and insulted - do you understand debating? Debating is when 2 sides get to have a say, in an atmosphere of respect, this is a complaint.

Just another attempt to smear a large portion of the population, well that's going to help isn't it - do you really there there is a small group of skeptics? Closer to half the population, maybe more now.

It's another hysterical doom laden threat to humanity that if we don't respect the superior and all knowing knowledge of a small group, the world will end.

It will not end, it will go on, the climate will change as it always has and your lack of understanding and the scientific communities lack of knowledge will not prevent it. The greatest folly of the age is fools who think they can predict the future and the ones who think they can re-engineer our planet to the way they want it.

Grateful thanks for the link Peter King and I understand 'Science' is considered one of the world's most prestigious journals. I shall file your useful information for future research.

Amicus, your problem is that you are using out of date terms.

"Debate" now means only the warmists are correct and their idea of open debate is no one else gets a say. Did you see the recent warmist debate in Melbourne, it was more reminiscent of a religious festival, everyone agreed with everyone that the heretics are wrong - and that they were all participating in a debate .. what a farce.

"Skeptic" now means, well I'm not sure any more about this one .. it used to mean doubt - but recently I see it means you are a re a despicable denier (of what?) and must be in the pay of the oil companies - why oil companies I'm not sure. They must have a lot of money as there seems to be a lot of people skeptical about AGW, particularly in relation to CO2 the poisonous deadly gas that is killing the planet (did I go too far?)

Do warmists still really believe all skeptics are being paid to be skeptical, or to appear skeptical .. why?

We could pollute less, clear less land etc .. but I'm totally against this hysteria about paying taxes, or indulgences, to allay our guilt of excess material happiness by pissing money away to third world countries, who will only piss it away anyway - they always have they always will - that's why we have money and material things, we can manage our money and growth better. Why do lots of people want to move to first world countries - to enjoy wealth and excess - otherwise, if they really cared about the planet, they would stay at home and live dreary lives consuming less.

I'm not going to change and will ensure my offspring have adequate facilities and bright future, without impoverishing them.

I wish some of the loud complainers would do as they tell everyone else to - and go live somewhere else and consume less, please don't use a computer - or you're a hypocrit anyway.

Amicus, You seem to have missed my point entirely...Leo Lane makes the statement "So against the 5 scientists who back the unscientific assertion that AGW is “very likely” we have over 31,000 who have put their name to a refutation of the IPCC’s nonsensical claim."!

My posts simply points out that at least 250 qualified and named scientists is slightly more than his 5 scientists. whether you want to acknowledge their concerns is entirely up to you.

The issue I have with LL and co is that a tag as above is easily picked up by the general public and it sticks in their minds...no one in the GUP is going to study the myriad of charts that have been produced analysing CO2 versus solar radiation etc etc. Even scientists probably reel under the amount of data.

Once again in the context of the headline article it further demonstrates what the author is saying.

cont...

Leo et al, about wanting to see one peer-reviewed study...

I found a very informative video that is worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o

The short answer that the video gives to the question you ask is that your question might be likened to "Show me the single study that proves smoking causes lung disease", or 'Show me the single study that proves HIV causes AIDS".
Science does not work that way. There are thousands upon thousands of studies and observations, that, taken together, add up to the overwhelming case on global climate -- which is why every significant scientific body that has ever reviewed this issue is in agreement.

That said, if you wanted to look at a particular paper, you could do worse than:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html

There's no need for the gratuitous "told-you-so" sneer, Loxton.

>>it's good to see that I was right in my first post<<

Your case is no stronger, or weaker, than it was then.

>>...the denialists running around like meat ants in a frenzy - very busy, very heated, but ultimately pointless.<<

In a frenzy? Heated?

Let's have a quick look at the calm, rational and measured approach adopted by... ok, let's choose Protagoras, since you mention him by name.

Here's a Protagorean sample

>>All these oil shills lead to the Heartland Institute and are parasites... a freak with one half of one sensory neuron... environmental and white collar crimes committed by industrial and financial barons... the think tank whores that support them and the bribery of corrupt politicians... industrial and multi-national corporations who are bludging off the environment by means of corruption, fraudulence, vandalism, cruelty, graft and unscrupulousness... crimes against humanity and biodiversity... fake scientist... sucking off the oil teat... professional douche bag... serial liar... remorseless fraud... fraud, unscrupulousness and chicanery... the frontline cadavers, their greed-induced parasites... trolls under a bridge and smells more like a terrestrial polecat than a Kryptonian woman... unmitigated swill... fraudulent oil-shilling scientists... wear the leper’s bell... usual shitstorm of absurdities... troll and a wasted space... retards and useful idiots... back on your potty chair<<

Denialists "like meat-ants in a frenzy", eh? Quite unlike the calm dispassionate tones of AGW fanbois like Protagoras.

>>Quote - "I actually don't have the time to read all 1,550,000 papers on the topic". Maybe one or two then?<<

As it happens, that was precisely what I asked for, several posts ago.

Why would you have a problem with that, I wonder?

Thank you, qanda, for the links, much appreciated. I will most certainly download and read.

Global warming deniers and their proven strategy of doubt

Making a point here

How can I be a denier of what has not been proven?

Of course, the zealots of Global Warming might feel they have a god given entitlement to demand we believe and share their fantasies

but the last time I looked henny penny was just a silly chicken

My apologies Pericles.

My comments weren't intended as a sneer rather despair at the predictability of this debate and the way in which the content of the original article was both ignored and proven simultaneously. I agree re-reading the nearly 90 posts, I don't think either side can hold their heads up when it comes to calm debate. There is a strong tendency to play the man not the ball.

I quoted that passage because I thought it was disingenuous to ask for something, be given numerous references and then say you don't have time to read them. I don't think the author was expecting anyone to read all 1.5 million papers, merely making the point that there is plenty of information if you are prepared to look for it.

Perhaps I can turn the question on its head.

Can anyone cite a peer reviewed paper by a reputable scientist published in a respected journal within the last year (I am only interested in up-to-date information, not the 1970s)that establishes conclusively that there is no link between CO2 emissions and global warming? Before anyone sends me umpteen links, please re-read the criteria - peer reviewed, reputable, up-to-date, published, respected journal.

Until then, I'm with the Governator “The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate.”

Pericles – My assertions are supported by evidence and again, you speak with forked tongue. And what is your contribution to the debate on climate change? Zero - just ad hominem! Hypocrite Pericles?

"I actually don't have the time to read all 1,550,000 papers." In fact Pericles you don’t have time to read ONE paper despite a decade of public debate.

George Monbiot advised of your leader: “He (Monckton) is capable, as you have seen, of astonishing viciousness." Touche Pericles – learn from it.

Monckton publicly stated of climate scientist, Professor John Abraham’s civilised refutation of his pseudo science :

"So unusual is this attempt actually to meet us in argument, and so venomously ad hominem are Abraham's artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn), that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies."

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Of course I am a lowly poster but what can one make of your pin-up boys who rant in the media and publish falsehoods in books on climate change? Even the denialist newspaper, the UK Telegraph stated:

"Lord Monckton is a fantasist, a blethering popinjay useful only for amusement. He can be safely ignored in all serious scientific debate. But it reflects badly on those people who want seriously to argue against the science of climate change that this capering jester is among the public figureheads of their movement.”

Hence the vaudeville:

http://www.youtube.com/user/thejuicemedia#p/u/0/KBzR0-j0O0o

Bellamy, Vaclav Klaus, Infhofe, Nick Griffin (UK MP), Beck, Limbaugh et al’s viciousness is well known where they refer to climate scientists and ‘warmists’ as:“anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao, Third Reich, Liars, the new wave of dangerous indoctrination of the whole world, wackos, jihadists, Commies etc etc.” Nothing on the science - just insults and your top climate scientist and sceptic, Roy Spencer does not flinch from an opportunity to demean his own science community:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/ecofreako-the-al-gore-tribute-band/

Now off you go Pericles. We are not the hand maidens of duplicitous alliterates.

At the risk of being called one of 'the hand maidens of duplicitous alliterates' by Protagoras (it does sound slightly erotic, doesn't it ? like poets' prostitutes), am I right in suggesting that average world temperatures have gone up by 0.7 degrees in the past sixty years ? Allowing for monitoring sites near airports, air-conditioning units, etc., how much is that really ?

And notwithstanding sea-water intrusions in the Nile Delta (with the Aswan Dam trapping Nile silt), Bangla Desh (as the tectonic sub-plate tilts down eastwards and up westwards) and Vanuatu (as atolls grow), is it true or not that sea-levels have risen on an average, by about 2 inches in the past sixty years ?

Assuming that no country will do anything about any of this for the next one hundred years (China and its shift to wind, nuclear and solar energy, India to nuclear, Australia to renewables, geothermal, etc.), and with economic activity likely to grow exponentially, would I be right in suggesting that the average world temperature will increase by 2 degrees, and sea-levels will rise on average by, say, six inches ?

Has anybody got any reliable figures on these parameters ? Or is everybody happy to keep arguing about how many angels can stand on a pin-head ?

Is it all a storm in a tea-cup or is it the long-awaited apocalypse ? And when can we get back to dealing with pollution and environmental degradation ?

Rip van Winkle

Well slumber on Rip Van Winkle for the enlightened ones have been trying to deal with pollution, environmental degradation and its connection to climate change for decades despite the sabotage by the ‘ecosystem of denialism and greed.’

And the denialism continues despite the IPCC and its WGII’s reports in 2007 of ‘extreme weather events providing evidence of increases in the intensity or frequency on regional scales throughout the 20th century. An enhanced hydrological cycle and an increase in area-averaged annual mean rainfall over Asia was projected by the group.’

Prophetic? June 2010 China: The media reported that nationwide, more than 2.4 million people have been forced from their homes by torrential downpours, which have disrupted transport, damaged power supplies and ruined crops.

‘Mudslides and raging torrents have been claiming close to 20 lives a day.

‘The flood has affected 25 million people in 10 provinces and caused economic losses estimated at 29.6bn yuan (£2.9bn), the civil affairs ministry said. The water levels of at least 35 rivers had exceeded warning marks and were threatening surrounding cities and farmlands. The levels of six rivers were at record highs.'

June 2010 Brazil: “The resulting floods have torn through dozens of towns with aerial images showing several areas that had been reduced to giant piles of rubble."

The local press suggest that as many as 97,000 people have been left homeless. 'In April, over 200 people were killed in Rio de Janeiro after rainstorms triggered landslides in several of its hillside shantytowns. One slum was swept completely off the map burying at least 47 residents alive.'

July 2009 UK: Flash floods of 'biblical proportions' break records.

November 2009 Ireland: Rain has caused record floods, the most serious flood event ever recorded in Western, Southern and Central parts of the Republic of Ireland.

Oct. 2009 India: India - worst floods on record (ABC).

But slumbering Rip grows old and gray
While twenty summers pass away
Yes, twenty years of flooding shores
While Rip Van Winkle yawns and snores.

Quite a poat, Protagoras, not alliterate at all.

So: how much ? How many degrees, really, in the last fifty or sixty years ? How many inches or cm or sea-level rise in the last fifty or sixty years ?

Give me something to believe in :)

Loudmouth

If you wish to remain an aliterate, there is no place for you in public debate.

Nevertheless I provide for your perusal one 2006 scientific paper (with compelling suspicions that your 'enthusiasm' is feigned) and a simple article from the BBC.

Should you continue with your vacuous questions, may I suggest you find another hand maiden - yes I am a maiden - errr....well... I'd better make that past-tense - 'was!'

Hasta la vista!

http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4651876.stm

Protagoras,

John Church has a very good paper in the Journal Science this week. However, other research by Nicholls and Cazenavel in the same issue (18 June 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5985, pp. 1517 – 1520 DOI: 10.1126/science.1185782) summarises the SLR issue quite well. Here is an extract if you can’t access the whole paper:

>> Although mean sea level remained nearly stable since the end of the last deglaciation (~3000 years ago) tide gauge measurements available since the late 19th century indicate that sea level has risen by an average of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm/year since 1950. Since the early 1990s, SLR has been routinely measured by high-precision altimeter satellites. From 1993 to 2009, the mean rate of SLR amounts to 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year, suggesting that SLR is accelerating.

Two main factors contribute to SLR: (i) thermal expansion of sea water due to ocean warming and (ii) water mass input from land ice melt and land water reservoirs. Ocean temperature data collected during the past few decades indicate that ocean thermal expansion has significantly increased during the second half of the 20th century. Thermal expansion accounts for about 25% of the observed SLR since 1960 and about 50% from 1993 to 2003. Since then, upper-ocean warming has been smaller and on average over the satellite altimetry era (1993 to 2009), the contribution of ocean temperature change to the global mean sea level may be ~30%.

Numerous observations have reported worldwide retreat of glaciers and small ice caps during recent decades, with an appreciable acceleration of this retreat during the 1990s. The glacier contribution to SLR from 1993 to 2009 may be ~30%. Change in land water storage, due to natural climate variability and human activities (e.g., underground water mining, irrigation, urbanization, and deforestation), contributes little (<10%) to current sea-level change. By contrast, intensive dam building along rivers during the second half of the 20th century lowered sea level by ~ –0.5 mm/year.

Cont’d

Since the early 1990s, different remote-sensing tools (airborne and satellite radar and laser altimetry; synthetic aperture radar interferometry [InSAR]; and, since 2002, space gravimetry from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment [GRACE] mission) have provided good data on the mass balance of the polar ice sheets. These data indicate that Greenland and West Antarctica mass loss is accelerating. Between 1993 and 2003, <15% of the global SLR was due to the ice sheets. However, since about 2003, their contribution has nearly doubled; increasing glacier and ice sheet mass loss has compensated for reduced ocean thermal expansion, such that SLR continues at almost the same rate. Although not monotonic through time, we estimate that on average over the altimetry era (1993 to 2009), total land ice mass loss explains ~60% of the rate of SLR.

The rapid changes observed in Polar Regions suggest that the ice sheets respond to current warming on much shorter time scales than previously anticipated. However, it is unknown whether these processes will continue into the future, resulting in a partial collapse of the ice sheets after a few centuries, or whether a new equilibrium will be reached. For the near term (next decades), the largest unknown in future SLR is the behaviour of the ice sheets. Although IPCC AR4 projections did not account for dynamical changes of large ice sheets, simple kinematics and observations of current velocities of marine-terminated glaciers in Greenland and West Antarctica suggest that future ice-dynamics discharge could lead to SLR of about 80 cm by 2100. <<

_________

Loudmouth

2 degrees (global average) by 2100 doesn’t seem much, but regional averages will be much greater (happening already here in Australia and other parts of the globe) AR5 will be more regionally specific due to more data and access to faster computers.

qanda,

Thank you (I'll bet you don't see that too often): 2 inches' sea-level rise in fifty years. In the next century, perhaps 8 inches ? So if nobody does anything, the parts of Sydney less than 20 metres above sea-level will be under-water in about 10,000 years.

Now to prise temperature change out of somebody ..... any takers ?

Rip van Winkle

Thanks for the update Qanda and it’s not cheery news and it appears that Perth is particularly vulnerable. Significant areas of Perth are situated along the banks of the flood prone Swan River and close to Australia's most active earthquake zone. There are several limestone belts to the north and south of Perth where karst systems have been discovered and the city's coastline already suffers significantly from coastal creep and erosion.

Winthrop Professor Chari Pattiaratchi from The University of Western Australia also said sea levels around Perth and the South West were now estimated to become up to one metre higher by the end of this century, affecting foreshore developments, beaches and housing.

http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/200911121880/media-statements/perth-water-levels-a-metre-higher-end-century

I will be interested to read of the outcome of the following conference on SLR, hosted by the ATSE which is to be held next month in Perth

http://www.gsa.org.au/pdfdocuments/Divs_SGs_Newsletters/city%20to%20cape_Prog%20and%20link%20to%20registration.pdf

However, I don’t think any of this will be of interest to the aburrido, do you?

Loudmouth, you say:

>> 2 inches' sea-level rise in fifty years. In the next century, perhaps 8 inches ? So if nobody does anything, the parts of Sydney less than 20 metres above sea-level will be under-water in about 10,000 years. <<

You seem to be having difficulty understanding, I'll try again.

The rate of sea level rise is accelerating and the observations (since AR4) taking place at glaciers meeting the ocean in both Greenland and West Antarctica suggest a sea level rise of 8o centimetres by 2100.

Now, 8o centimetres might not seem very much to some people (you think it equates to 8 inches for Pete's sake!) but if you add a 'king' tide and an extreme weather storm surge, that 80 cm can turn into 1.2 metres (some places more, some less).

I agree, all this talk of 20 metres SLR happening anytime soon is just silly, but one metre SLR is bad enough - maybe not for you, Loudmouth, but for the millions of others that will be affected.

Anyway, the planet does not stop in 2100 - sea levels will continue to rise, and by all accounts, at an an ever-increasing rate, Loudmouth.

As to temperatures and takers. We've been through this on OLO before. In this thread, you have been given the links, why can't you look at the research papers yourself?

Let me guess:

. You don't remember, you don't know how to, or are too busy or lazy, or

. You don't know where to look other than 'denialist' blog sites or,

. You clasp your ears with your hands, close your eyes and drone on about la-la-de-da, or something similar.

A combination of all 3, probably.

________

Protagoras: probably not. Sad really, being a real sceptic I would be the first to gather as much information as possible, especially the bits that run counter to the scientific consensus.

Did I miss something qanda? Did you post a link to some scientific proof of contribution of human emissions to global warming.

There is no such link, qanda, which is why you talk about all sorts of other issues, which are irrelevant, unless human emissions have any contribution to global warming, and of course, you know that there is no scientific basis for any assertion that human activity contributes in any measureable way to global warming.

There is the pretend science of the disingenuous IPCC, which pretended that there is scientific agreement by scientists that it is “very likely”.

As a scientific basis this is meaningless, and the support for it is a mere 5 scientists, if you do not count the 55 conflicted scientists, who should not, in their circumstances, have offered an opinion

As against that there are over 31,000 scientist who signed a petition to have it noted that there is no science to support the assertion of AGW.

Why do you continue to try to support this scam, qanda, do you wish to become as disreputable as Naomi Oreskes?

"As against that there are over 31,000 scientist who signed a petition to have it noted that there is no science to support the assertion of AGW."

Told ya Qanda - How does one debate with an aliterate, an unlearned dummkopf incapable of understanding basic, complex issues or even the consequences of global CO2 emissions which increased from 22.5 billion tonnes in 1990 to a rapid, 31.5 billion tonnes in 2008?

But I suspose one must indulge an obsessive dolt who threatens society with a fake petition circulated over a decade ago which every reputable climate scientist, every government (of every political persuasion) has ignored or dismissed as quackery.

Yet the dummkopf demands that we accept this hogwash as truth but has yet to provide just one scientific paper from one of the 31,000 'scientists' proving that climate change is not happening, proving that the science to date is mythical or even one paper to substantiate his wild and silly assertions - well except the unmitigated swill from one computer consultant of no fixed address aka J McLean. Hilarious!

Perhaps you should consider responding because I think he craves attention Qanda and besides, I suspect the poor man is about to throw yet another tanty!

Protagoras

I don’t think so, one doesn’t have to “indulge an obsessive dolt” incapable of understanding even basic physics or chemistry, nor debate them. Why? Because, like Leo Lane, Nick Lanelaw or whatever his name is, they just repeat the same old inane mantra time and time again:

“31,000 scientists ... 31,000 scientists ... 31,000 scientists ... 31,000 scientists!”

Despite the fact that the holy grail of grails of the ‘deniers’ has been refuted, repudiated and rejected, also time and time again:

http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/what-if-the-oregon-petition-names-were-real/

I have mentioned previously that I was added to that “list”, by a colleague in the US as it turned out – not hard to do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

As to the purring lion, he says:

>>There is the pretend science of the disingenuous IPCC, which pretended that there is scientific agreement by scientists that it is “very likely”. As a scientific basis this is meaningless, and the support for it is a mere 5 scientists ... <<

He obviously can’t count more than the fingers on his (other) hand. In greenfyre’s link:

“In the US alone there are an estimated 2,685,000 scientists The OISM sent out their call to a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science and it got broadly passed around the denialosphere … and they managed to get a mere 1.2% of the American scientific community – WOW!

Except, notwithstanding the extreme parochialism of the American Deniers, climate change is actually a global issue. It involves the global scientific community (who knew?), and the Petition has international signatories, so the real baseline for comparison is the global community.

There are an estimated 63 million scientists in the world, so even if the names were real, the Petition would have managed a stunning 0.005% of the scientific community – DOUBLE WOW!

It’s a fair bet that a far larger proportion of the scientific community smoke Gitanes, or collect antique watches, or are certifiably insane … all of which are just as meaningless as the Petition.”

“Greenpeace and WWF have certainly contributed their pseudo scientific campaign material to the IPCC climate science reports and it's been presented to Joe Public as peer reviewed science.” Posted by CO2, Friday, 18 June 2010 2:53:34 PM "Why the oil spill isn't BP's fault"

Qanda - Will it be poster ‘CO2' who has the integrity to retract his erroneous claims?

Crikey - Extracts:

<Watch this space for an embarrassing backdown by The Australian over a front-page story attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the World Wildlife Fund for an “unsubstantiated” claim that 40% of the Amazon rainforest would be wiped out by global warming.

In fact, the WWF had simply failed to properly footnote the passage, which was later confirmed to be based on a peer-reviewed study by the Amazon Environmental Research Institute. The Amazon claims in the initial WWF report were later picked up by the IPCC.

And: After months of deliberation the story, by Sunday Times journalist Jonathan Leake, was exposed as a sham in a weekend mea culpa published in The Australian’s sister paper and brokered by the UK Press Complaints Commission.

The complaint, lodged by Royal Society scientist Dr Simon Lewis, slammed The Times for publishing “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”.

The “scandal”, dubbed “Amazongate”, was repeated and re-reported across the media, including outlets like ABC’s Radio National (The World Today), 2GB’s Alan Jones and The Sydney Morning Herald and even featured in a Crikey wrap.

(Extract of the Sunday Times apology):

“In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute which did relate to the impact of climate change.”

In a blog post titled “Now the IPCC sexed up the Amazonian danger, too”, Andrew Bolt accused the panel of publishing “wild scare-claims, many based on unchecked statements by activist groups.”

No correction on Bolt’s blog as yet.>

But Bolt and Leo Lane are the grave liabilities of the liars' lair.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/06/23/sunday-times-apologises-over-ipcc-amazongate-what-about-the-rest-of-the-media/

Qanda, did you attend physics lectures?

Were any of them after you left junior high?

If they were, what were you doing? Sleeping off last night, or cuddling in the back seat? It must have been something like that, because the rubbish you spout here, to those poor dolts, proves you didn’t absorb any of it.

But hang about; does a comfortable life style depend on you spouting this rubbish? That’s about the only reason I could find for anyone who did absorb any physics pushing the rubbish you do.

Money will do strange things to one’s understanding of stuff, won’t it?

Yes Hasbeen, I did, and still do - I give them. And as my bank manager will attest, it ain't for the money.

You, obviously, don't have a clue about physics, H a s b e e n - pure and simple even.

"If they were, what were you doing? Sleeping off last night, or cuddling in the back seat?"

Ooh Hasbeen that was so not fierce (snap, snap!) Now you lose ALL your princess points. And you know what? Catty stuff like that is reserved for sleep overs when girls get together to talk and comb each others hair. It used to be popular too before the middle ages, when your Ma and Pa were still young and fresh. Sorta like: “Hey qanda - I can't count but my scalp bugs are bigger than yours.” Tsk tsk.

"Global warming was the great unfinished story, but with the mainstream media and many politicians acknowledging the reality of global warming in recent years, it seemed that there was real progress. “The debate is over,” California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared in 2005. “We know the science. We see the threat posed by changes in our climate.” "
The authors are as gullible as the mainstream media and the politicians.
They have been conned into believing the warmist hypothesis that human-caused socalled greenhouse gas emissions are the main driver of climate change.
It is unscientific to say that the hypothesis is true until such time as it is proven wrong. The onus of proof rests firmly upon the proposer of the hypothesis, not with its refutation.
The warmists have failed to produce that proof , after searching for over 20 years. As they cannot put up, they should shut up.

Einstein's hypothesis wasn't "proven" till 2007. That didn't stop, nor indeed censor, science in the intervening years. It certainly didn't stop policy makers from making the decisions they thought were necessary that were based, and sometimes dependent, on Einstein's postulates.

Raycom, can you please give me your thoughts on why you think the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling?

qanda
If you have irrefutable proof that CO2 emissions are the main driver of climate change, then table it. Otherwise, stop clutching at straws!

It was too much trouble for qanda to calculate the percentage of scientists backing the non scientific assertion of the IPCC that AGW is “very likely”, after his effort in making up a number for the number of scientists.

I will tell you what it is, qanda, .0002% of scientists,supporting "very likely", as against 1.2%, who confirm that there is no scientific basis for asserting AGW.

The real science says it is 100% very unlikely

You and Protagoras talk about everything but proof, of global warming, and slime and undermine the truth, in your desperate support of the fraud.

So it turns out that, long after the event, the fraudsters have produced some “proof” that the WWF article had peer reviewed backing. Why did the IPCC not refer to peer reviewed science, in its summary?

Not just because it is headed by a railway engineer, and not a scientist, but because many of its errors were based on WWF articles. The nonsense about the Indian glaciers was based on a phone call to a cabdriver, who gave his opinion. The possibility that one WWF reference in the Summary turned out to be justified makes little difference, and it is misleading to suggest otherwise.

This is reminiscent of the peer reviewed study, produced by the Climategate gang to refute the settled science that global warming is all accounted for, from natural sources. It barely lasted five minutes scrutiny, but the miscreants were able to delay the publication of the study dismissing it, for a few months.

At the moment there is not even any pretend science support for the alarmists.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, and the IPCC Summary is so full of proven nonsense that it would be easier to specify what is justified, than set out the long list of proven unjustifiable assertions, in this document.

“You and Protagoras talk about everything but proof, of global warming, and slime and undermine the truth, in your desperate support of the fraud.”

Behold the resurrection - genuflex, genuflex! Long Shot Leo – dead but won’t lie down, who thinks that accepting a body of scientific fact is a matter of belief.

Poor Leo – too aliterate, too tardy, too shifty to read beyond the tabloid headlines and too deficient to grapple with the statistics.

Researchers on ‘Credibility in Climate Change,’ (sent for review in December 2009 and published this year) separated their research on climate scientists into two groups:

CE = Convinced by the evidence on climate change
UE – Unconvinced by the evidence on climate change

Alas for Long Shot Leo, the following evidence emerged:

Only 2% of the UE group were in the top 50 of climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of publications)

Only 3% of the UE group were in the top 100 and only 2.5% in the top 200. Tut tut!

This evidence revealed that 97% of self-identified, actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

It's tough for Long Shot Leo, slithering around on the bottom of a slimy heap.

Protagoras is still talking about everything but the fact that there is no scientific basis for the assertion of AGW.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion of anthropogenic global warming, despite billions being spent on research for it.

Protagoras and qanda still believe the fraudsters might prevail.

Oi...Protagonist.... coooooEEEEEE!

ummm people who write with your level of passion, usually have something to "lose" if things don't go their way :) (but I do like your entertaining virulent style)

err.. How many SHARES to you have (mortgaged the house perhaps?) in ENVEX with your mate Bob Carr ?

If we get an emissions TRADING scheme, you and BOB will be filthy rich..not to mention the feedback to Labor.... *wink wink*

"err.. How many SHARES to you have (mortgaged the house perhaps?) in ENVEX with your mate Bob Carr ?

"If we get an emissions TRADING scheme, you and BOB will be filthy rich..not to mention the feedback to Labor.... *wink wink*"

??

Definition of unhinged:

Crazy, insane, delusional, confused. Not attached where it really counts, much like a door. The poster is obviously a basketcase.