Tom-

Get your work published if it's any good, and stop trying to impede open debate with your pathetic threats and flimsy slurs.

Geoff, you are so kind. But as it happens I have just (24th) been invited to submit a chapter (subject to peer review) to a new book on Climate Change (due out in both hard cover and e-book formats in July next year). I was told the invitation arose from my peer-reviewed papers in E&E last year, in particular my short piece "Nature's New Theory of Climate Change", available at my website:

www.timcurtin.com

How are you getting on with your own papers as submitted to the EJ and AER in which you revolutionise economics, and also subject climate change theory to rigorous statistical analysis?

colinsett, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 11:07:03 AM
You said: “The Science of Climate Change questions and answers” by The Australian Academy of Science has been on its website since August.It would appear that many of those posting comments, and the author as well, have not bothered to read it. That is unfortunate for any of these who wish to retain an open mind on the issue."

You are wrong, in my case at least, as I have read it. It is a travesty and shows how low Australian "science" can sink. Not a single one of the authors has shown any capacity for multi-variate regression analysis, and one of the lead authors has even admitted to me he cannot do or read regression results.

This is most notably evident in its Response to the Question, are human activities causing climate change? For there it mixes truth with fiction: 1. "human activities are increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere", true for CO2, not for CH4 or N2O (both these are stable, AR4, WG1, Table 2.1, with rates of increase since 1998 of either nil for CH4 or less than 1% p.a for N2O)

2. "it is very likely that most (sic) of the recent observed (sic) global warming is cause by this increase in greenhouse gases".

If you have the energy to ask for a copy of my submitted paper (tcurtin at bigblue.net.au), it shows there is no statistically significant evidence that the trivial average annual increase in [CO2] (only 0.4% pa)has had any impact whatsoever on temperature changes.

The AAS provides no statistically valid evidence at all for its wild claims.

JacobusZeno-
If you're still there? Here are some figures: human "waste" heat (i.e. from human activities, largely fossil-fuel driven) 0.028 W/m2. Greenhouse heat trapping 2.9 W/m2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

So much the biggest effect is from CO2 trapping a little more of the sun's heat. The heat from things we burn is 100 times smaller.

@Geoff Davies

"JacobusZeno-
If you're still there? Here are some figures: human "waste" heat (i.e. from human activities, largely fossil-fuel driven) 0.028 W/m2. Greenhouse heat trapping 2.9 W/m2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm"

Yes I'm still here (I think :-)...

Thanks very much for this I have started reading this paper and others related to it. Most interesting.

James

Leo

You were quick to respond to my first question, which I appreciate. But it seems that the second one is very much harder to deal with.

In the absence of compelling evidence that AGW is not real or significant, we should err on the side of caution and behave as though it is very significant.

I’ve made this simple but all-important point many times on this forum and elsewhere. It seems that the denialists just can address it.