jeremy, I don’t think you are taking this very seriously.

We have a government that is about to impose a tax on every Australian, which is based upon the assertions made by ministers and their advisors. Now the whole basis has been seriously questioned by scientists.

When you refer to Combets’ statement, you say it does not go into scientific detail, you mean it is unsubstantiated? Correct? That is why the questions have been asked in the first place isn’t it?

We have government ministers and their advisors telling the public that we must be taxed and the reason is what? These were the questions you were asked to answer.

It is unreasonable of you to assert that I am one of the 99% that does not understand the science and then challenge me to understand the science by “reading up” on it. What is it with you?

You do understand the science so if you have the answers please provide them. If you cannot justify or validate the statements made to the Australian public, that’s OK, just admit it. Nothing wrong with that, it seems the government can’t either.

The Australian electorate is being asked to understand that the government, its advisors and well read people like you have the answers. The problem seems to be that no matter who we ask, the answer is always the same, “Oh well, you don’t understand”. A blinding glimpse of the obvious really. That’s why we keep asking the questions, Doh!

I calculated that your response to my request has a “fog index” of 35.4. Three times the norm. That tells me that you don’t have the “foggiest”, not a clue; you are just full of it.

When are we dummies going to get some answers?

I'm guessing when you're prepared to actually listen to them.

Leo Lane - fully agree..

Jeremy - good stuff! I quoted the CO2 temperatures effect in the Lorius paper as as that's not controversial at all. The addition to the debate over climate sensitivity to CO2 is controversial. The sensitivity factor has been kicked around quite a bit. Scientists are now making systematic efforts to track water vapour concentrations in the upper atmosphere, which they should have done right from the start.

Solar - you are confusing two types of solar. Everybody else does this, even senior scientists, so not its not surprising. There is direct effect - the sun's output varies slightly, and that's the effect that has long been tracked and is well known - then there is solar magnetic, the outward manifestation of which is sunspots.

The Lockwood-Frolich,paper I quoted was, in effect, denying the solar magnetic link for recent years. Now they were quite right, apparently, to say that the link seems to have broken down. But the sun has been behaving so oddly of late that the apparent breakdown is no real proof - something's going on but what?

However, the admission that the sun has been driving climate up until at least the 1980s or so chopped at the heart of the proof climate scientists have been using. They set up the models with and without carbon in the atmos over a few decades, and lo the one with the carbon forcing is a better fit - ergo carbon forcing must be a factor. This is (almost) the only way to tell the difference between artificial and natural warming. (Actually there are others, but global warmers don't like they because the verdict is mostly natural.)

Unfortunately, a major driver of climate, the solar magnetic effect wasn't in those models (solar forcing was, not solar magnetic). So at the least it all has to be redone. Certainly any projections made using these models have to be junked, as have all the calculations on sensitivity.

Forecasting of any kind is hard to get right, and very easy to get wrong.

Which apparently makes it dead easy to write books that critical of forecasting.

Although they're not exactly up there with Clive Cussler.

spindoc,

I'm not sure why I should be obliged to find an answer for every question you
ask. It's reasonable to expect me to answer questions about assertions I've
made - that's all.

you say:
When you refer to Combets’ statement, you say it does not go into scientific
detail, you mean it is unsubstantiated?

Well, he doesn't give detail about the scientific research - that doesn't mean
it doesn't exist.

You say:
We have government ministers and their advisors telling the public that we must
be taxed and the reason is what? These were the questions you were asked to
answer.

And I decline to do so. See above.

you say:
It is unreasonable of you to assert that I am one of the 99% that does not
understand the science and then challenge me to understand the science by
“reading up” on it. What is it with you?

Did I say that about you? But if it's so then I see the problem,
but there's no way of answering questions about the science without mentioning
the science.

(you say)
You do understand the science so if you have the answers please provide them.

Well the scientific background, which motivates government policy, is there,
even if you don't read it.
Anyway, what questions, exactly, do you want answers to?
If you want everything I know about climate change - I won't, it's a time issue.
If you want everything known about it - I can't.
But you might try http://www.skepticalscience.com/ - it has information in
varying levels of scientific detail.

(you say)
I calculated that your response to my request has a “fog index” of 35.4. Three
times the norm. That tells me that you don’t have the “foggiest”, not a clue;
you are just full of it.
When are we dummies going to get some answers?

The answers are definitely there.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ may be good for you to get
the level of scientific detail you want,
you can select to get information at levels you select:
Basic, Intermediate, Advanced.

Jeremy, you said << I'm not sure why I should be obliged to find an answer for every question you ask. It's reasonable to expect me to answer questions about assertions I've
made - that's all. >>

And you also said, << If "true believer" means a person who believes the experts until given a reason to suspect otherwise - then count me as one. >>

Good, so now we that you do indeed assert that AGW is true.

So let’s keep this really simple. Below is just one statement made by Greg Combet and just one question from Malcolm Roberts. All you have to do is answer one simple question which will then support your assertion.

Statement: “The scientific evidence is clear that carbon pollution is contributing to climate change.”

(Greg Combet, Minister for Climate Change in The Australian.)

www.theaustralian.com.au/.../carbon-price-is-the-best-way-forward/story-fn5oad9h-
1226012246858

Question: “Please provide one specific piece of scientifically measured real-­world evidence that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming or in any way affected global climate?”

(Malcolm Roberts BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago) Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust), March 3rd, 2011