Hasbeen, you just don't get it, do you?

http://tinyurl.com/4tqq2ch

Wait, we've been there before:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4319#109711

"The rise of atmospheric energy (heat) level due to emission of greenhouse gases and land clearing..."

Dear old Andy's gift for unsubstantiated assertion is alive and well.

Hey fellow posters - don't be so hard on Andrew. There is some indication in this article that he is acknowledging that reality is not quite following the IPCC script.

Thus in the first part of the post, "potentially leading to warming by 2.3 degrees Celsius, currently mitigated by the transient effect of sulphur aerosols and the cooling effect of the oceans".

So instead of insisting that temperatures are going up when there has obviously been no significant change for the past 13 years of so, he is now saying that the warming is temporarily masked. A small shift perhaps and only in the face of overwhelming evidence that nothing is happening, but he is a climate academic after all. We can't expect too much.

“potentially leading to”

I love terms like that

Most things have some “potential” but a lot of the time the “potential” does not occur –

usually because the assessment of potential was flawed or exaggerated in the first place

“The Earth energy balance is defined…..” and that is simply another theory honed by a political twist to be good bad of irrelevant

“According to the IPCC AR4 (2007) ….“ and that as an information source

is like drinking from a well contaminated with cholera

rpg “Basically what we expect from the alarmists, more alarm, nothing new there.”

Exactly!

I see most posters hold similar views….. skepticism must be contagious …. Or maybe it is common sense which has caught on

Thing is, most OLO posters are not sceptics - they are cynics.

Cynics may not like what the author says but at least he links to the sources for his arguments.
This way, anyone watching/commenting can go to them (like a real sceptic would) and try to counter the argument.
They don't.

This article's cynics are just asserting their own ideological guff - nothing new.

You deniers never come up with anything new, do you? Just the same old nastiness that contributes nothing to the debate. Just reliance on a few dubious references and ignoring the vast scientific literature that Andrew Glikson's article reflects. I hope the shock jocks like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt one day get charged with treason for acting so clearly against the interests of the country. I hope that they and all you deniers on this forum will reflect back on Andrew Glikson's words when the next major bushfire, cyclone, drought or flood hits this country.
He's right: the alternative - to deep emission cuts accompanied by atmospheric CO2 draw-down - does not bear contemplation.