Bonmot,
So, we can conclude from your back-peddling and from you having pointed me to this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B1XF20110112?pageNumber=1

Which uses much more moderate phraseology, like:
--"Climate change has LIKELY INTENSIFIED the monsoon rains..."
--"IT WASN’T POSSIBLE TO SAY IF CLIMATE CHANGE WOULD TRIGGER stronger La Nina and El Nino weather patterns that can cause weather chaos across the globe."
---"I THINK PEOPLE WILL END UP CONCLUDING THAT AT LEAST SOME of the intensity of the monsoon in Queensland can be attributed to climate change.."

With not the slightest a hint that AGW was the essential trigger, as very much implied in Ken Fados’s quote. That you now concede the statement was misleading ,outlandish even!

And I welcome this forthright, if somewhat camouflaged step-down :
“Am I defending “THAT” statement John Carey attributed to Trenberth”

Now you are beginning to sound like a real scientist and not a Mullah defending a dogma … though I still detect a residue in this little quip :
“It’s typical tactic of your ilk – spin, distort and misrepresent what other people say”
With its inference that all who challenge you are infidels.

As for this :
“Yet you make a big deal of “THAT” statement”
I assure you the deal I made is far less than what would have been made had a leading sceptic figure/body said something as outlandish--- as anyone who has read ‘Merchants of Doubt’ can attest.
(what goes around comes around! )

And, with this:
“Now SPQR, what about this?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11513#196159
or are you going to ignore something that you in fact raised?”

You’ll have to be more specific –in keeping with true scientific protocol I (unlike some others) need to be clear about what I am commenting on.

reply to ;Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 22 January 2011 1:21:47 PM

I do and I really believe the majority agree with emission controls .

Nuke energy is the way to go , in France NU power generators are located in the suburbs something like 20 of them ; how thick are we ? Yet we are OK with those Victorian power generators spewing out all kinds of crap on a megga scale .

The so called "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" Professors and Scientists , qualifications I have never heard of before ? Where did they all come from ? Were they waiting for the Hockey stick ? Or were they under occupied burnt out nut cases who saw juicy grant funding opportunities .

BOM used to be a creditable weather info organisation but now to make some sense of over whelming useless information is such a time consuming pain Farmers , Ag sprayers etc. pay big money to private weather forecasters , what happened to BOM , where did all the creditable people go ? Perhaps frustrated by AGW madness they found something more rewarding to occupy their intelligence .

The climate change pundits must be embarrassed after telling the farmers that the river country is finished the Darling river is finished yet 7 weeks later a massive flood , hey Penny ,Tim and Ziggy
whats this stuff , petrol? Previously Penny told a reporter at the release of water from the dams on Cubby Station that the water would be at the Coorong in about a fortnight , poor Penny , Cubby Station water would never get through the Macquarie Mashes .
Go here to get an idea of the massive scope of the catchment area of the Murray Darling Basin would you be prepared to suggest that the Darling was finished as a river look at the Warrago it starts about the same Latitude as Tambo in Queensland . www.native.asn.au/ozrivers.htm

Ken Fabos says

//Only the Greens are serious about emissions//

But Ken, what you either don't realize or arn't telling is the motives of the Watermelons.

Never forget they are very red on the inside. The thin Green exterior is just a ruse to exploit widespread public anxiety in an almost textbook 'propaganda' method (straight from Edward Bernays book "Engineering Public Consent"

THE REAL motive of the Green Watermelons is 'Wealth Redistribution' under the guise of 'saving the environment.'

Please don't argue against this (unless you want a prize for the 'Most Naive' bloke on the forum) it's being openly stated by IPCC experts.

Quote:
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.
– Ottmar Edenhofer
Unquote

So the verrry HUGE dirty secret is no longer a secret.. it's 'out there'.

-We knew it
-We know it
-We STILL arn't, weren't, and won't be fooled by it.

//Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.//

Though in this case we DO know who they are!

//If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.// (Bernays)

i.e.. when you MEAN "Wealth redistribution and abolition of private property and State takeover of all resources"....

you SAY "Global warming/Climate change"

What some of us know

Is that AGW and poverty

Are the real problems

Scurrilous pundits

Spreading misinformation

Exacerbate them

Pelican,
fair enough to be an agnostic on AGW, since we have no idea possibly of long-term variables. How anyone can hide behind that though (of course I don't mean you) and pretend we're not driving eco-destruction on a massive, even geological scale, is beyond me. But these minimifidians are beyond the pale. It's one thing to equivocate over the nitty gritty of AGW (for sport), but it's impossible to equivocate on human environmental destruction overall. Indeed, given the collateral evidence, it amounts to monumental nit-picking to argue that, given all the "coincidental" evidence, the fully-established warming trend is not anthropogenic. The science is CDF.

Alan,
I suspect that a few decades hence your indignation at the thought that the mining companies make amends for their indirect rapaciousness, or pay a general compensation, will be reversed. Future generations will be indignant (what an understatement!) at the callous disregard of anything but the bottom line that our will generation will live on in infamy for--for condoning it!