spindoc

Links please.

"All of the anti-AGW poppycock posted on this comment thread is thoroughly debunked on the SkepticalScience website: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

In the absence of any scientific evidence that convincingly illustrates that global warming has been caused by anthropogenic gas emissions, the author relies heavily on assertions made in IPCC reports. Assertion is not science.

Furthermore, the IPCC reports have been tainted with essentially false statements, for example:

. the deletion of a key consulting scientific reviewer approved statement, “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases... no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed to man-made causes" from the final draft of the 1995 Report, and the insertion in its place of strong endorsements of man-made warming;

. the inclusion in the 1995 Report of a 1000-year climate history graph showing a warm period from 1000 to 1400 AD with warmer temperatures than today, and its replacement in the 2001 Report with a hockey-stick shaped graph (subsequently shown to be falsified) showing 900 years of stable global temperatures until about 1910 and then sharply rising temperatures thereafter.

Climate science is not settled. If the author and others of his ilk are convinced that it is, then they should have no hesitation in calling for a Royal Commission into the acceptance of climate science in Australia.

Raycom
So a couple of cherry picked out of context quotes disprove climate change.
Go to the web site above and read as there are multiple indications that climate is changing and is man made.
There is enough scientific evidence to indicate AGW not your misinformation.
Where is your evidence that is not due to humans? if you have any go to SkepticalScience website and talk to scientists they would love to hear from you.

PeterA
The question is not whether there is "climate change".

*Obviously* there's climate change - what sort of bald-faced mendacity is that?

The question is whether there is significant global warming that is man-made, whether and how anyone would know; and how you would know *that* given the vested interests of those people in the knowledge they purvey; if there is significant global warming, whether it spells ecological disaster or not, why, how they would know the conditions of the distribution and abundance of hundreds of thousands of species over thousands of habitats, how you would know *that* given the vested interests of those people in the knowledge they sell, and how you would deal with the value judgments required for their statistical operation.

And if there is all of that, whether government can make matters better rather than worse; what would be the advantages and disadvantages either way, how you would know; how you would decide the ethics of killing large numbers of people now, how you would weigh the value of a certain known life now versus an uncertain unknown life in the future, how far, why, how that is to be known or calculated, if it's not to be calculated how is it to be known or justified, who should have the authority to decide and why, how you could justify forcing people to obey when they don't accept it, how are we to know that the negative consequences of governmental action would not be worse, all things considered, how you would know that, what is the effect of vested interests in skewing debate either way, and how you conjure the ethics of knowingly killing large numbers of people.

Either the apologists for policy do, or do not cognise these issues and either way they are guilty of culpable ignorance, dereliction and intent.

The reason why 2010 was recorded as 'hot' was because the temperatures from weather stations at a few Arctic airports have been extrapolated over vast areas of frozen tundra. Since some of those weather stations are directly in the path of aeroplane jet streams as they turn, it's not hard to see where the extra heat is coming from.

The UK 'enquiries' into the Climategate emails demonstrated nothing except how gullible UK politicians think their voters are: no sceptics were on any of the panels, Phil Smith was called on to supply his own evidence, and the total amount of time spent just about added up to a long lunch for all the parties concerned. Can you say 'whitewash'? Hopefully the forthcoming US Republican-backed enquiry will manage to maintain more credibility.

The UK BoM, which predicted a balmy summer and a mild winter, is rapidly sliding downhill towards the same precipice of credibility that Al Gore and James Hansen disappeared over not long ago.

As to our own Bureau of Meteorology, they have just been advised by New Zealand that NZ's 'official' temperature series was wrong and biassed (largely by the efforts of one AGW fruitcake) and the 'correct' series now shows barely any warming in the last 50 years. This may act as a wake-up call for them too.

First we win: then we fight you; then we laugh at you; then we ignore you. We are laughing at you now.

Have you got a link for that Jon J? I hadn't heard that they have officially said it is biased, just that it is not an official set of figures.