Considering the Bush family and their criminal wars, is it so unreasonable with voter support gone now, to suggest that the likes of Al Gore, the criminal lab coat consultants, pandering politicians, lazy teachers, criminal PR firms and most of all, the irresponsible NEWS EDITORS, all be round up and arrested and charged with treason for leading us to a false war of climate change? They condemned billions of people to death by CO2 for 24 years and we are supposed to just let them walk away now? Twenty-five years wasted on climate control instead of population control. Email your authorities in your particular part of the world and maybe, just maybe, history will not mock us all for this modern day witch burning of climate change. Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education. NOW tell us climate change wasn’t a crime!

good article, I love it when the hysteria is dealt with so well and rationally. Interesting the alarmists always forget to deal with errors or uncertainties of measurements, I guess the story isn't as doom laden if they do include them.

Now if you could deal with the Maldives hysteria, which seems to be pretty well over anyway. The government there has committed to a new very expensive airport and strip, not the sort of thing you do if you think the islands will be under water any time soon.

Clearly the banks loaning them the money don't see much risk.

It made good publicity for the islands though, to be hysterical in the "come and see them NOW" type of tourism marketing push.

A lot of the panic and hysteria of alarmists appears to be used by people as a vehicle for other movements, like immigration to Australia and New Zealand, like tourism promotion, and of course, the ever faithful, give complying scientists lots of money to corroborate the doomsaying.

Aren't you afraid for your life, Cliff?

Are you not aware that the Proletariat and the Party declared that the sea is rising and the islands disappearing?

Can't you see that this policy is an important segment in their overall campaign for diverting the attention of the masses away from their own faults?

If necessary, they could and would use bulldozers to prove it, but getting rid of people like you is cheaper, so beware...

Plimer and others said this years ago. Few supported him then. Now more are coming out of the woodwork. Well, Tuvalu nearly pulled off one of the great scams of the century. Money to prevent something which was never happening anyway. Brilliant!

Cliff - there is no doubting your reasoning but one of the odd parts of the climate debate is that reasoned arguements which completely debunk climate scares gain no traction and are not repeated anywhere.

You will find that even Dr Church, who is mostly at the more reasonable end of the climate science scare spectrum, will have no idea that any of his arguments on sea levels have been countered - sometimes even after the material has appeared in the refereed literature - let alone be aware of any of the broader problems of climate science.

Scientists may be, well scientists, but they still don't seem to go out of their way to inform themselves on anything apart from what they happen to be working on at that moment.

It is relatively easy to do a rough and ready test of predictions about rising sea levels for yourself. Just get hold of an old out-of-date atlas (your local underfunded state primary school probably has a good stock of these) and compare the maps with the aerial satellite views of the same islands from Google Earth. It's highly unlikely that you will find any consistent evidence of sea levels rising.

And don't forget the mean sea-level mark from 1841 at the Isle of the Dead in Tasmania -- http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm. If the seas are rising, why is the mark still over 30cm above the current mean water height?

Is the sea rising, or is it the AGW ship sinking?

Ian Fry, a part time ANU student from Queanbeyan attended the Copenhagen hot air fest to perform as a Tuvaluan, uttering such lines as “I woke up this morning crying, and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit ... The fate of my country rests in your hands.”

His country?

He has never so much as visited Tuvalu, but he wept for the gratification of the warmist audience at Copenhagen, and they loved it.

Nils Axel Morner, who has devoted his life to developing his expertise in sea levels, visited Tuvalu, and was able to show that there has been no change in the sea level, apart from a small lowering of the level, over the last eighty years.

He also found a photo of a tree taken 50 years ago. The tree was still there, and he demonstrated by this evidence, that there was no change in sea level.

The greenies have fixed the problem, by ripping the tree out. Global warmists are very devoted to their cause, as they demonstrate by their efforts. No vandalism is too great a challenge.

Al Gore, who won a Nobel Prize for lying, announced that thousands of climate change refugees had migrated from Tuvalu to New Zealand. People who had migrated from Tuvalu had no idea that their migration to NZ was for any reason other than economic, and Gore was unable to convince them otherwise.

Thank you Cliff for a most enlightening article, giving guidance in the confusing world of the AGW myth.

Maybe in geological time occasionally these places get swamped; if one happens during our brief reign I daresay our best response would be to take a few million Polynesians in.

Much easier than cap-and-tax driven pseudo ocean level 'management' that our eco-mullahs hope to foist on us.

http://www.archive.org/details/TheGreening_492

Interesting to see that this book was published in the early 1990's.

I was at one of the AGW functions a few weeks ago where they were all lamenting how they could "Re Sell" their arguments/achievements.

One of these whack jobs even tried to tell me that the chemical composition of gum leaves was being changed by the extra co2 & Koala mortality was rising.

Almost all of the Radical, Extreme, Loony Left, whether they are in Politics, Bureaucrookracy, Academia or Journalism seem to be stuck in telling Deliberate, Premeditated, Lies almost all of the time & wondering why we don't believe them.

Unfortunately no amount of evidence will change the mind of the alarmist (many of which are making a quid) out of their faith. Ms Gillard would rather send electricity prices rocketing using the Green myth as justification. The moment we allowed the twisted observation of evolution to be taught at fact we allowed all sorts of other myths to pass as science.

Leo Lane, your rhetorical spin precedes you. Anyone else would 'fact check' before they embark on vilification of someone they don't even know.

Ian Fry works as the International Environmental Officer for the Environment Department of the Government of Tuvalu ...

He has held this position for over ten years and has represented the Tuvalu Government in numerous international fora including the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Commission for Sustainable Development, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, Convention on Biological Diversity, and United Nations General Assembly ...

Ian is the spokesperson for the Alliance of Small Island States on matters relating to land use, land use change and forestry and more generally on issues relating to mitigation in the consideration of future climate change regimes ...

His work focuses on building the capacity of government representatives from Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States. He has facilitated negotiations training workshops in the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, the Marshall Islands, Nepal, Samoa, Senegal, and Tuvalu, as well as special pre-Conference of Party workshops for LDCs in Canada, Italy, Indonesia, Kenya and Thailand. This work is carried out in association with the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (UK), the United Nations Environment Programme, WWF Pacific and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme ...

Prior to working for the Tuvalu Government, Ian worked as a writer for Earth Negotiations Bulletin. He has been a long term member of the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law and a member of the International Council on Environmental Law ...

He is currently undertaking a part-time doctorate through the Fenner School of Environment and Society (ANU) looking at land use change and forestry issues under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

Qualifications: Bachelor of Applied Science (Biology) (CCAE), Grad Dip Media (CCAE), Master of Environmental Studies (Macq U), Master of Environmental Law (with merit) ANU, Grad Dip. International Law (ANU).

I don't know why you lot are so much against climate change. Or is it carbon tax what you are worried about. Industry needs a good clean up, and so do households. Power hungry houses need ripping down, it is not necessary.
Instead of calling it a lot of bull, give us some reasons for status quo.

579, I don't think anyone doubts that the climate changes, what many doubt and are skeptical about are the causes and the so called solutions, which seem to involve taxes to"fix" the climate.

A lot of folks think climate change is natural, and poorly understood.

Sure, we can always clean up our act, but the alarmist claptrap goes way beyond that to telling us how to lead our lives .. many people resent that.

nothing new there is there?

Why do you say "I don't know why you lot are so much against climate change. " ..?

Do you think anyone has said the climate does not change? Where?

You do sound a little miffed that there are disbelievers?

Do you think mankind can control climate? (Stuff it up maybe, but control it?)

579 said- " I don't know why you lot are so much against climate change. Or is it carbon tax what you are worried about. Industry needs a good clean up, and so do households. Power hungry houses need ripping down, it is not necessary.
Instead of calling it a lot of bull, give us some reasons for status quo."

579 -
Don't you realise WE are going to pay if industry has to pay? I'm not against energy efficiency, no reasonable person is. People here are against the notion of AGW Climate Change simply because it is a scientifically dubious idea being used to extract money from inhabitants of industrialised countries to achieve dodgy economic,political and ideological ends and ultimately have no effect on the climate anyway.

A year or so ago I examined the tidal data at the BOM for Australian sea level measuring stations and over the last few years the sea level at Cocos Island has fallen significantly. The same group had measuring stations for a large group of Pacific Islands and any change in sea level was barely measurable. Only a few stations in WA showed much in the way of sea level rise and ther may be a different cause for that.
The same false panic has occurred over sea acidity. The ocean pH is about 8.3 or quite alkaline.
Sodium and magnesium salts in the ocean operate like buffering agents and all the fossil fuel in the world, if burned to carbon dioxide, would hardly lower the ocean pH significantly.
Over eons of time carbon dioxide may cause magnesium carbonate to settle out of the oceans much the same way that carbon dioxide caused the calcium carbonate which formed the White Cliffs of Dover to settle from lime rich water. That would hardly change the magnesium salt content of the oceans at all as the ocean contains about two million billion (2 with fifteen zeros) tonnes of the stuff.

Ian Fry is with the Centre for Climate Law and Policy at the ANU. He is said to be the International Environmental Officer for the Environment Department of the Government of Tuvalu, which he does from the ANU.

Where did you get the idea that using Tuvalu for his lefty nonsense projects means that he has been there, bonmot? When his wife was asked if he had ever been to Tuvalu, she said she would not comment.

He is a fact challenged negotiator for the Tuvalu government. His job is to fool people like you, bonmot, although I do not believe you are as stupid as you pretend,

Here is a sample of this wierdo’s spiel:

“Obviously, hopefully, things will change on the U.S. legislation front. If they do, it will relieve pressure from the situation and allow for more progress to occur. And hopefully we'll be meeting again in June in Bonn, and that may allow us to move forward in a more substantive way. Hopefully we will move to Mexico with ideas of the U.S. having signed a legal agreement.... It gives us a little bit of breathing space. If that works out favourably, then I think we can really get into some negotiations of proper outcomes and not just window dressing, like we did in Copenhagen.”

So many words, and so little meaning or cohesion. A great sample of the substance lacking mouthings of a lefty academic supporter of the attempted fraud of AGW.

Please do some research on what constitutes a fact, bonmot, before you try to comment on facts again.

Leo
Where did I say Ian Fry has been to Tuvalu? You can cyber-bully Ian Fry all you want Leo, but for Tuvalu’s residents (totaling less than a modest Australian rural/regional town) he is most definitely not a “weirdo.”

Your ‘dog whistle’ argument is non sequitur, Leo – conflating the article’s premises with your fallacious conclusions.

AR4 projects a sea level rise of 59 cm by 2100 (with error bars). Taking into account uncertainties (which are acknowledged) and the fact that ice-sheet melt was not sufficiently researched to be included in AR4, 59 cm is bad enough. This is particularly so for regions where ‘king’ tides and storm surges will exacerbate an already low-lying coastal fringe – Tuvalu OR wherever.

Foyle
The 'ocean pH' has become ‘more acidic’; it is not acidic per se. Nevertheless, the decrease in 'ocean pH' due to the oceans absorbing more CO2 is having major repercussions on the soft-shelled exoskeletons at the bottom of the (sea) food chain.

Jon J
Daly’s 7 year old paper has been superseded by more robust satellite data – and an old school atlas just doesn’t ‘cut it’. But go ahead, challenge someone like John Church with your assertions – and please, post his reply here for our enlightenment.

Curmudgeon
“Scientists may be, well scientists, but they still don't seem to go out of their way to inform themselves on anything apart from what they happen to be working on at that moment.”

Not quite sure what you are alluding to.
Scientists are real sceptics (unlike the cynics I see here) – they do look at past and current research that could impact their theses.
Are they supposed to be “experts in/on everything”? Clearly not. However, if you ask them for a “qualified opinion” on something outside their area of expertise, they will often give it – as Ollier does here. Does that make it gospel? Clearly not.

Two more things;
John Church is more of a scientist than you give him credit for.
Do you/others really think you’re in some kind of OLO dialogue with Cliff Ollier?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11282#190683

bonmot, your 4th para reply to foyle.

How does ocean pH moving away from alkaline corrosive, towards a pH neutral, non corrosive state equate to thinning of shells?

Given that all left wing Academics, clearly have motives both financial & ideological. Why should we believe any of them on anything?

Almost all myths promoted by Radical, Extreme, Loony, Left Wing-Nut, Academics, Bureaucrooks, Politicians & Journalists for several centuries have been successfully debunked throughout history, but especially over the last decade or 2.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Perhaps this will help you to understand?

REAL evidence that Global Warming is a wealth redistribution scam is now on record from the UN itself.

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

Read it and weep you Greenies.

lo. The world was changing right be-fore your eyes.

Paleontology has all the answers. Its funny really, man thinks just when he/she has only just taken off its baby boots, and one has all the answers! Thats! incredible.
How is this your thoughts when so little is UN-understood?



BLUE

SNAG...you say:

"I was at one of the AGW functions a few weeks ago where they were all lamenting how they could "Re Sell" their arguments/achievements."

Mate..did you by any chance notice a whole lot of
-"Che"
-"Mao"
-"Marx"
-"Hammer and Sickle"

Posters hanging around the walls ?

Or..perhaps the more suttle "Wolf in sheeps clothing" of the Fabian Window in the London School of Economics :)

AlGoreisRich
You drew attention to a site address. I have read it and the main point of the article was, in my view, as shown below. The last sentence (after Why?) is the important comment.
Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

Thanks bonmot for having the grace to admit that Fry was a liar when he wept for “his country”, Tuvalu, at the Copenhagen clown fest.

His wife refused to comment when asked if he had been to Tuvalu to live. In fact Fry has been to Tuvalu. He conducted a three day seminar for the politicians of Tuvalu, on lies to tell if you represent an Island community and wish to be part of the AGW fraud on western civilization.

This was financed by that august body the WWF, which also financed a week’s holiday for Fry at Tuvalu following the seminar. The WWF, you may remember contributes unscientific lies to the IPCC Summary, and is an ardent supporter of the AGW myth.

The nonsense about the Himalayan glaciers was not supplied by WWF. That was supplied by an Indian cab driver, phoned by the IPCC researcher, for input to the Summary.

The disingenuous head of the IPCC, Pachauri, was surprised at the public reaction to the fact that the IPCC Summary contained nonsense represented by the IPCC to be science, when it was, in fact, activist misinformation.

Pachauri thought everyone knew that the Summaries were poitical misinformation, and used only as a justification to remove wealth from the Western Nations, and give it to parasites like the UN in a pretence of assistance to undeveloped countries.

http://www.science20.com/cool-links/head_ipcc_surprised_people_didnt_bogus_climate_data

Foyle, it is clear that there is no justification for limiting emissions. CO2 emissions are increasing, and there is no warming. The warming that took place up to 1998 amounted to six or seven tenths of a degree, and there has been none since. This tiny increase is not worthy of attention, and we have had temperatures lower than the baseline since. There has been global cooling, but according to the alarmists, no cooling trend.

The QR National company, just floated, has an income base in coal transportation. The float was a success, and the shares have increased in price since listing.

The real world has moved on from the AGW alarmism. Coal is King.

Cliff, I'm less than impressed by this article. When a few keystrokes and mouseclicks can take you to global data on sea level like this one http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html that includes maps showing a strong and consistent trend of global average sea level rise as well as showing that sea levels aren't rising the same everywhere. And I don't think that peer reviewed science is denying that other factors are involved including geological lift and fall when getting down to specific locations. For coral atolls they also include coral reef growth and health which you fail to even mention; the impacts of warming and reduced ocean alkalinity (acidification) on the reefs look very serious and they are crucial in keeping islands afloat. Reefs are not going to keep pace with sea level rise if they are dead.
Cliff, I think that your failure to look at the major components of sea level rise - expansion of ocean water from warming and continuing loss of land ice from Greenland and Antarctica (Grace satellite data shows greater ice loss and acceleration of it that show how conservative IPCC under-estimates have been) reveals that you are not interested in the broader issues in their entirety but in focusing on bits that you think will divert attention from the big picture and support your 'nothing to worry about' slant. When every institution that studies climate says we have serious problems, I consider intentionally misleading articles like yours - intended to suggest there is no sound basis in the work of thousands of leading scientists - to be dangerously misguided and irresponsible.

Yeah, perhaps Fry should have just wept for the country he represented.

Your other no-balls even missed the keeper.

AGIR - you just blew me away, I didn't know John W Howard (former PM) was a communist! I saw him at a function too, trying to explain why his climate change policies were far more 'left' than Rudd's.

bonmot, I'm afraid Leo Lane has you, there. Leo pointed out that Fry, who tearfully called Tuvalu 'my country', was not Tuvaluan, and had apparently never even been there.

You countered with a list of Fry's bona fides, all intended to apparently give the impression that he is a fair-dinkum, grass-skirt-wearing Tuvaluan.

However, Leo's point still stands. Fry is a paid lobbyist for the Tuvaluan government who apparently works from the ANU, and 'would rather not comment' on whether he has ever actually been to the place.

If that makes Tuvalu 'his country', then Sting is apparently a Peruvian indian.

Oh wow! Clownfish, I think you've nailed it. I mean, really - you're telling me that some governments, even if they are from teeny-weeny small island states that don't have the capacity for such highfalutin politicking, have to resort to some well credentialed lobbyist to speak their case.

Oh double wow-wow! And here's me thinking only 'civilised' governments use well credentialed lobbyists. Hey, wanna bet that Leo will tell us that under-developed countries (the rascals) will use lobbyists in Cancun too!

In westen port bay, there is a jetty that is basically on dry land, the water at high tide, just touches the end of the jetty.

So from this conclusion, one can extrapolate that sea levels are falling not, rising.

Secondly at the top end of Western Port is a ship, that is perhaps 50 metres from the waters edge.

Admit it, bonmot, you were caught out, and Fry was a grandstanding bullsh!t-artist.

Is Mr Fry, occasional Vanuatuan, at this months climate clownfest in Cancun, Mexico?

I wonder who pays his way, probably an Ausaid flowdown .. it's sure to be the Australian taxpayer however he does it, what a scam.

Clownfish, love your work .

And the fossil fuel addict said...

The real world has moved on from the AGW alarmism. Coal is King.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 28 November 2010 4:02:45 PM

In your dreams Leo:)

BLUE

Ken Fabos could not find anything relevant so linked us to the work of the previously reputable, but now politicised work of the CSIRO, giving us some pointless material on sea levels.

We know that sea levels are a complicated area, and they rise and fall in different parts of the world for many different reasons, so a graph showing a trend has little relevance, here, and Ken has certainly failed to show any relevance to Cliff’s article or to Tuvalu.

There has been no rise in sea levels at Tuvalu.

Here is a sample of the message from John Church, one of the group at CSIRO who produce the material referred to us by Ken Fabos:

“If society is to reduce the risk of major ice-sheet contributions to sea-level rise and of profound changes in marine ecosystems, a sustained reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is an urgent priority”

Would you trust a graph from a scientist who makes such a statement, in the face of the fact that there is no scientific basis for asserting any measurable contribution to global warming from anthropogenic emissions?

He said these words recently, at a time when there has been no global warming for 12 years, and no warming in the Southern hemisphere, where most of the ice is situated, for at least 30 years. The total warming of the globe up to 1998 was seven tenths of a degree, virtually nothing.

It is difficult to ignore the sheer dishonesty of the alarmists.

Deep Blue, you do not seem to have noticed that Spain, the great pusher of wind farms and solar (claytons) power, has deservedly gone broke, in following the unreality promoted by the alarmists. In the real world DB, power at a feasible price for industry, is obtained from that great old standby, fossil fuel.

Ken

You suggest: "When a few keystrokes and mouseclicks can take you to global data on sea level like this one http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html that includes maps showing a strong and consistent trend of global average sea level rise as well as showing that sea levels aren't rising the same everywhere."

I checked out this site. Sorry. Leaving aside other important considerations, less than two decades of data is surely insufficient to draw (alarmist) conclusions? Secondly, is comparing this limited data with the (presumably less than high quality) "average value over the 20th century" meaningful? Thirdly, even the CSIRO admits uncertainty about "whether or not this represents a further increase in the rate of sea level rise."

Historical sea level changes - Last two decades
High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992), Jason-1 (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century. Whether or not this represent a further increase in the rate of sea level rise is not yet certain."

An earlier post by you elsewhere [4 January 2009 at 7:17 AM] was a surprise too. You wrote that it would be better if the "suitably qualified" commented on subjects like this one, as they "would (should) get taken more seriously than someone like myself who has no relevant qualifications and holds no relevant position".

Alice (in Warmerland)

Leo Lane

You keep saying the warming has not increased you are totally wrong and just cherry picking, the last 12 months hottest on record and this year could be the hottest, and it is a La Nina period and low solar activity.

Typical of denialists they twist the facts.

Just try reading http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

Alice, surely you could have seen and clicked on the sidebar links to longer term data. I don't see why I should have to do the few keystrokes and mouseclicks for people who prefer their groundless disbelief to knowledge.

Alice and Leo, you would clearly like to dismiss outright CSIRO representations of data from a variety of highly credible sources such as satellite telemetry (Topex/Poseidon, Jason1 and Jason2) historical tide gauge data ( which the satellites are consistent with for the period of overlap), and highly reputable institutions such as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Instead you clearly favour misleading information about one specific place by someone who conveniently has failed to mention that coral reefs - that contribute to stability as well as elevation of coral atolls - are highly at risk from Warming as well as Ocean Acidification.

And, of course, he fails to mention the basis of reliable expectation of more sea level rise. Or mention the rest of the world's low lying regions, most of which are not conveniently showing elevation rise in excess of sea level rise.

Typically, authors like Cliff Ollier want to distract attention away from the huge and overwhelming body of evidence of global warming. Hottest decade on record, after the second hottest decade on record after the third hottest decade on record from multiple independent global temperature estimates - ice sheet loss, glacial loss, ocean heat content rise, borehole temperature rise ,phenological changes - every indicator that we have, ground, ocean and space, all independently showing clear evidence of a warming world.

Without the greenhouse effect and human emissions, every attempt at explanation of current climate change falls to pieces on close examination. Yet I notice only unquestioning support for whatever rubbish the high priests of climate change denial say from the loyal disbelievers - the faithful brethren accepting it all without expressions of doubt. And you expect to be taken seriously! What a joke. Give me real scientists practicing true scientific scepticism over your quasi-religious dogmatism any day.

No doubt the Brits would be hoping that the totally discredited gw myth is shouting in the face of the true believers. Whether it is record cold in Europe, rainfall in Australia or just plain lies being uncovered it is no wonder Ms Gillard is rushing to tax the life out of Australians as more and more wake up to this very bad joke. Can't say along with any other thinking person that I told you so years ago. Has Flannery handed back his award yet or Gore swallowed a little of his pride? I doubt it.

Ken, you have been asked repeatedly for any scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, and you invariably talk about something else.

When it comes to irrelevance, and weasel words, Ken, you are up with the leaders.

“Hottest decade on record, after the second hottest decade on record after the third hottest decade on record from multiple independent global temperature estimates - ice sheet loss, glacial loss, ocean heat content rise, borehole temperature rise ,phenological changes - every indicator that we have, ground, ocean and space, all independently showing clear evidence of a warming world.”

Robert Carter in his excellent, recently published book on Climate gives as an example of weasel words, a passage very much like the one I quoted above, from your post, and gives a very good analysis of the manner in which the words are designed to misinform and mislead.

PeterA. You come up with the same tired old warmist mantra of “hottest year ever”, again.

As for referencing the site “Skeptical Science’, you make it clear that you believe low grade unscientific nonsense. It is easily refuted but they do not permit truthful comments, on that site.

There has been no warming of any significance. The last century at its hottest had a warming of little more than half a degree. The warmist nonsense is based on predictions, and as any honest scientist will tell you, it is not possible to predict the climate.

Computer modelling has its uses, but prediction is not one of them.

We are as likely to have global cooling, as global warming, and if we have global warming, there is no scientific basis for asserting that human emissions have any input to it, otherwise Ken would have produced it, instead of attempting to misinform and misdirect us.

Ken even tries to accuse realists of quasi religion. Gore in his last book said that facts are not important, and he intended to work more through religion in the future. Ken appears even more dishonest than the disingenuous Gore, who at least acknowledges that the facts do not assist him.

Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Mussolini all said, in one way or another: "You are either with us or against us."

Advocates for preventing climate change are close to this way of thinking. I must admit when the first news came out I was 100% behind the environmental movement. The facts keep changing, but now I am still 100% behind caring for the environment; the environment movement..well, it depends on which organisation/group it is.

If we take this article as accurate, then we do not really have to worry about Tuvalu disappearing. But what about the melting Siberian ice or global warming itself? At the very least we should care about all the pollution we keep producing. Yes, I am guilty too: computers, electricity, plastic goods, air travel...but cleaner industries that don't pollute the air, groundwater or the soil are a win-win for all. Otherwise make sure to get full health insurance and start investing in water filters.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Yawn...........Leo,Leo,Leo....what will we do with you? Its early times yet my friend but your recording has still got cow smell about it:)( COW methane...punt intended ) OK....Lets look to the future shall we........We know all fossils fuels will run out.......You have to agree with that, cause you know it will..Right. So after you and your ilk dug up the entire planet, and again...you know this will happen sooner or later..right. So its far to say that you will have to come to us greens, cause again..........you will have no choice.

So the bottom line is LEO..... us greens will have the last laugh... and then you will want help after we have told you all this truth is inevitable.lol. but the fossil fuel junkies have conned all the corrupt pollies and their ilk to slowing blend one into the other knowing the risks to the planet.

Ok......Leo............its your sides gamble.

Good luck.

BLUE

Leo Lane never attributes his misinformation, when he is given links dismisses it with out understanding or probably reading.

All he can do it is to point to discredit reports, books or persons.

In fact the ones he names are not even climate scientists.

At no time has any denilist provided (including Leo Lane) any information on what is causing AGW.

The data clearly shows that the temperature have been increasing and 97% of climate scientist believe that we are responsible.

PeterA, 97% of which scientists?

Come on, Peter: name them. If you've got such precise data - 97% no less - you must be able to tell us who they are. Individually. Each and every one of them.

Or are you just pulling figures out of your @rse?

And what about other scientists?

Oh, but you'll whine, they're not *climate* scientists, are they?

Yet, as Tim Flannery grudgingly admitted on Q&A, most climate scientists are 'climate scientists', are they? They have, as he admitted, come to climate science from other fields.

Also, climate science is highly inter-dependent with other sciences, so what other scientists have to say about it *does* matter.

Peter A said

"You keep saying the warming has not increased you are totally wrong and just cherry picking, the last 12 months hottest on record and this year could be the hottest, and it is a La Nina period and low solar activity.
Typical of denialists they twist the facts.
Just try reading http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm"

Peter - You should read the BBC interview with the notorious Phil Jones from the CRU who admits there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

He also admits there has been cooling since 2002 though he claims it is not statistically significant.

This mob http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news_archives/record_temps_2010.html is involved in the "socialist/communist plot" - the whackos will destroy the "nuclear family", so we are told.

How long is a 'trend' ?

If memory serves me correctly, last year's northern winter was one of the coldest for decades. This current northern winter is the coldest on record in many places in Britain.

And it's not even winter there until tomorrow.

All of this only has relevance in relation to anthropogenic global warming, which has done its dash now, with a wake to be held in Cancun.

Alan Caruba reports on the hot air fest to be held in Cancun:

“A climate mafia has existed since the gathering in Kyoto, Japan, to establish the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. …
its real purpose was to create an entirely bogus system of emissions trading to be known as “the carbon market.”

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a criminal enterprise set up as a mechanism to facilitate the sale of bogus “carbon credits” and to transfer billions from industrialized, developed nations to those that have failed to keep pace. This latter scheme is little more than extortion.

In 2007, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Al Gore and the IPCC for their efforts to further this fraud.”

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/

In another column, celebrating Climategate day 20 November 2009, he says:

“It was the day that Cap-and-Trade legislation, the largest tax ever on energy use, was eviscerated as lacking any basis in science. The legislation proposed to establish a “carbon credits” trade that would have enriched the Chicago Climate Exchange created by investors that included Goldman Sachs. Following the "global warming" hoax revelations, the Exchange would close its doors within a year.”

AGiR, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but, how could you make such an outrageous suggestion?

They were all wearing Koala or Kermit suits & carrying dog eared old copies of their "son of god", Chairman Mao's "Little Red book" covered in bright green contact. Just to protect the pearls of wisdom within, mind you, nothing to do with "hiding the truth" from anybody.

Have you seen these mate?

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/radical-roots-seep-through-at-the-heart-of-greens-20100726-10sj0.html?skin=text-only

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-covert-comrades-in-the-alp/story-e6frg6zo-1225887087909

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=5vajlNhSzWYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mark+aarons+the+family+file&source=bl&ots=_JqnT4mkHv&sig=23tiin36Jjg84b7-Ttuxxp7L3gI&hl=en&ei=jKD0TOiQD8fzcfH_mMcE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Throw in the "Frankfurt School's" influence & even "Right Wingers" like Senator Arbib, Kevin Rudd, etc, etc, etc, have been completely conned by the "Politically Correct Thought Police", tragic really.

Ben Chifley & B A Santamaria would be turning in their graves if they could see the full horror, of what the Red, green, getup, labour, socialist Alliance has degenerated into over the last few decades.

Leo, why should I need to provide evidence or proof to you? It would be a futile endeavor since it's abundantly clear that scientific data, logic and evidence good enough for the most conservative and careful scientific institutions in the world - those true jewels in humanity's crown - is not good enough for you.

The fundamentals of human induced climate change are accepted science and are completely in line with accepted science, good enough for the USA's and other leading National Academies of Sciences, for the CSIRO and BoM, - for every institution that actually studies climate. And peak science body of every relevant discipline. It's based on the same physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, geology etc as is incorporated in and underlies the body of knowledge for all those disciplines.

The current true understanding of our climate is something beyond price, giving us clear warning of the consequences of changing our planet's atmosphere - and you trample and spit on it.

Because, Ken, you are asserting something which has no scientific backing, that is why you should provide the science which would justify your assertion.

I know you cannot, because it does not exist.

Simply withdraw your fraudulent assertion about AGW, and you are not required to produce anything.

None of the bodies you mention have produced any scientific backing for their weasel worded utterances. You would know better than I why they have done it, as dishonesty is part and parcel of your presentation, as it is theirs.

Your statement “giving us clear warning of the consequences of changing our planet's atmosphere” is another example of the weasel worded implicit assumption that human activity is affecting global warming.

We are not changing the atmosphere in the manner you imply. Carbon emissions are not pollution and have no measurable effect on climate.

There is no scientific proof of AGW.

Any more stupid questions, Ken?

Ken

What Leo doesn't understand is, that human activity itself will cause the warning of the planet. Also he's right to a point, in that there's no concrete evidence at this time that's reliable, being his main argument. ( corruption still cant be ruled out ) Co2 is just one factor out of many that contributes to IMO....... the changes that were going to happen anyway. Pollution when talking particles per million....can have the volcano affect of cooling the planet, ( I read that somewhere ) However, if Leo is right...were still going to risk the planet and if he's wrong, the same will happen.

Human population is the biggest threat to all and which ever way you look at it...............billions are going to die. Its called extinction......and we have no-where we can escape from it. All the links Ive put on olo are in fact happening right now,

water,food,tree's,habitat,drought,ice-melting,desserts growing,global-extinctions,high-pollution,over-population,war,chemicals,methane-other-gases,plate-movements,volcano's,earthquakes,solar-flairs,tidal-moods,and the BASIC planet is on the move constantly......well that's why its a little hard to judge exactly whats going on.

I have heard every angel to this debate.........and whats why they can put the carbon tax on the table for the simple fact that not one professional can agree on what the hell is going on.

Its a case of your dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't.

However one thing is for sure...........we human-beings are changing it no matter what they all say.

The bigger picture.....is alot more scary.

BLUE

Leo Lane

Not one attribution just opinions only - with no scientific backing.

I would like to see Leo contribute to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ as he is so sure he is right.

Please tell us where you get your misinformation from.