It seems Leo Lane is impervious to reason. Once again, she asserts that there is “no scientific basis” behind the theory of human influenced climate change. This is simply silly. What does she suppose climate scientists around the word do with their time? Where does she suppose the thousands of scientific papers, published in reputable journals, and presented at reputable scientific conferences, come from?

Look, for example, at the proceedings of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographical Society at their 2010 national conference in Canberra, one hundred and thirty eight scientific papers on topics including Climate Drivers, Drought, Rain Extremes, Weather Systems, Climate Impacts and Bushfires, and so on. See: http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/11/1/011001

Look, for example, at the five pages (a hundred or more) scientific references included in Climate Change 2009, Faster Change and More Serious Risks, ed. Prof. Will Steffen. On-line at www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/.../2009/.../climate-change-faster-change-and-more-serious-risks-final.pdf

Look, for example, at the seven pages of scientific references included in The Copenhagen Diagnosis, Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW 2009. On-line at www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

Look, for example, at The Science of Climate Change, Australian Academy of Science, 2010, on-line at www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange2010.html

These are just a couple of Australian publications which I have on my desk, and which are easily accessible on-line, part of the mass of accumulating evidence from around the world. The Washington Times, a failing newspaper set up to counter the percieved "liberal" bias of the Washington Post, and owned by the anti-communist Rev. Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, is not a reliable source for climate science or even climate opinion.

Obviously, nicco has no scientific evidence to back the assertion of AGW, so she talks about everything else.

Talking about effects of global warming is an attempt to conflate it with AGW. There is no scientific basis for the assertion of AGW. Everyone knows that there has been global warming and that it existed before human emissions began, and will exist after human emissions cease, but human activity has no measurable effect on global warming.

AGW is dead in the water. It was nicco or one of the others, of that ilk, who asked about the science explaining the cause of global warming.

The peer reviewed study, which explains global warming as arising from natural cycles, and which was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in July 2009 is here:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

Professor Robert Carter comments on the study as follows:

“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.
Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation”.

What the alarmist scientists had been doing, was taking “unallocated” global warming and attributing it to human emissions. Just one of the many “tricks” employed by the warmists, but time has run out on this one, as it has on everything else, for the assertion of AGW.

Nicco might come back to talk about something else, but not about science to back AGW, because there is none.

The paper quoted by Leo Lane (McLean, de Freitas and Carter) does show one thing, and that is that the debate about human influenced climate change is alive and well in the scientific literature. However, the paper itself was overwhelmingly rated as not credible by the climate science community. A detailed technical rebuttal of McLean et al (Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature,” Foster et al) was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in March 2010.

Leo Lane’s continued assertion that there is no science to back human influenced climate change is simply wrong, and it is puzzling that LL continues to state this demonstrable untruth.

Wrong nicco. The attempt to discredit was of a previous paper, and was carried out by a group of climategate miscreants and their associates.

Here is an email from the climategate collection which gives the flavour of this tawdry exercise:

“Incidentally I gave a copy [of the Foster et al. critique] to Mike McPhaden and discussed it with him last week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference. Mike is President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras, and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.”
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28, 2009

Rushing into print with a “scientific” paper full of rhetoric, and unethically approaching a person in a position to shortcut the proper process.

This scurrilous group was able to block publication of the refutation of their rhetoric for some time after their paper was expedited into publication.

Michael Mann, another climategate reprobate (of “hockey stick” infamy) said in an email:

“a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in the peer-reviewed literature.”

JGR is the Journal. The important thing to the reprobates was to have peer reviewed literature to which people like nicco can refer, to appear to rebut the true state of science in relation to AGW.

The climategate accomplices, of course, reviewed each other’s papers, contrary to the requirement that reviews be by people who are not associates. This is how they produce “peer reviewed” articles.

“Leo Lane’s continued assertion that there is no science to back human influenced climate change is simply wrong.”

It is correct, nicco, until you give a reference to this alleged science, which of course, you cannot do. I am telling the truth, which is more than I can say for you.

LL's use of tendentious words such as "reprobate" and "miscreant" suggests that LL is either incapable or unwilling to take an objective view of scince and scientists. I remind LL that five enquiries found no scientific malpractice in the the case of the stolen emails (aside, of course from the theft of the intellectual property itself.) However, if LL is convinced that climate scientists are involved in a conspiracy, there's nothing more to be said. (Belief trumps evidence every time.)

LL persists with the absurd assertion that there is no science to back the theory of human influenced climate change. In fact there is an almost overwhelming amount of research, published and in progress. I refer LL to my post of 1 December where I list three recent Australian academic publications, each with many pages of references to the science.

And to give some historical context, I refer LL to the 750-page book, Greenhouse: Planning for Climate Change, ed. GI Pearman, published in 1989, being a collection of papers from a climate conference held at Monash University that year, dealing with human-influenced climate change in past decades.

Nicco, you refer only to papers with an inbuilt assumption of AGW. This false assumption proves nothing. Your failure to acknowledge this, demonstrates that you either lack comprehension or are dishonest.

If there were any scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, the IPCC would be trumpeting it worldwide, because at the moment they cannot justify their parasitic existence.

I have given you a reference to the science which shows the natural causes of global warming, which leaves no room for the baseless assertion of AGW. The warming is accounted for, without any input other than from Nature.

Your assertion that there has been a refutation, I dealt with in detail, to show that the pathetic attempt by the Climategate crew to refute it, fell flat, and the emails showed them as the unscrupulous manipulators that they are.

That is an objective view, and I gave you the emails to back it up, in my post.