Don Aitkin is one of the few commentators to ask questions which can be vaguely related to the article, so I thought I would try and provide some answers.

• He is critical of the references used in the article and says “surely we are entitled to assess all the evidence”. Indeed you are. No one is preventing you from reading as widely as you like. Dr Glickson’s references do what they are intended to do – provide additional relevant material from reputable sources.

• Mr Aitkin then goes on to ask … what about the uncertainty on whether or not there is an increase in sea level? There is no uncertainty about sea level rise. Over the last 16 years Sea Level Rise has been measured by satellite and shown to be rising at an average rate of 3.2mm per annum. There are lots of articles confirming this. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-sea-levels-rising.html might interest you.

• What about the uncertainty on warming of the oceans? Again, what uncertainty? It has been evident for decades that ocean temperatures have been warming and we know this because millions of measurements have been made world wide which record ocean warming in the top 700 metres. If you google ocean warming, you have a choice of 46 million articles on the subject less than 1 year old. Alternatively, try http://www.csiro.au/news/OceansWarming.html

• What evidence is there that aerosols have a cooling effect? Lots of evidence, particularly from volcanoes. When ever there is a major eruption, ash in the atmosphere reduces the level of sunlight reaching the earths surface and average global temperature falls.

• Mr Aitkin then assert that Hansen et al 1988 predicted a temperature increase of more than 1 degree by now while “measured increase is much much less than that”. Well no, it isn’t. Average global warming is now 0.8°C which is less than he predicted but not “much much less than that”. You might be interested in the explanation at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.ht

Continued

• You say that global warming ceased in 2000. Saying it does not make it so and you offer no evidence to support your claim. That is understandable since the first decade of this century has been shown to be the warmest on record and there is simply no evidence to show otherwise. A number of articles refuting the claim that there has been no warming since 2000 are provided at http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=global+warming+stopped+in+2000&x=15&y=17

• You seek an explanation: how obvious flat lining of global temperatures in the last decade can be explained when atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued to rise? The explanation is simple. It is true that CO2 concentration has continued rising is true but your assertion that global temperatures have “flat-lined” over the last decade is, as shown above, wrong. In response to increasing CO2 and feedbacks, average global temperature has not “flat-lined”, it has risen and continues rising.

for Agnostic:

I'm sorry to have to say that because I am about to go away for the next few days I won't be able to respond to each of your remarks in detail, as they deserve. But, quickly, skepticalscience is only one of many sites that claim to provide answers to everything, and it is (in my opinion) biased towards AGW. You can find alternative sites with ease. Try science of doom, lubos motl, wattsupwiththat, ClimateAudit, either of the Pielkes, and so on. They all use data, often the same data, and draw different conclusions from them. Is the ocean cooling or warming? You can find data to support either answer. Is the sea-level rise accelerating? Again, what answer do you want? There are data that support different answers. Which data should we prefer? In my opinion, most people prefer the data that support their own view. I have trouble when the data point in different directions.

It's not easy, this stuff! My response to Andrew Glikson, with whom I have debated these issues both in public and in private, was to ask him to consider the alternatives, not simply to prefer his own sources and sites.

Agnostic:

Don is right, to a certain extent – most people do prefer data that support their own view.

This is misleading though. The inference (albeit unintended as it may be) is that the data is a hotch-potch and nothing is really clear when in fact, the opposite is true. The weight of evidence in support of the IPCC’s assessment is unequivocal.

I acknowledge Don Aitkin (and others) go to; Science of Doom, Lubos Motl, WUWT, Climate Audit, either of the Pielkes, and so on. So yes, there are many blogs that Don (or you) can find to support his/your view.

But that is all they are, BLOGS.

Perhaps there are those that really do think that the vast amount of scientists who do the research, who write the papers, who get published in the journals – base their conclusions on the Watts, McIntyres and Pielkes of the world. I would like to think not, but going by comments of some previous posters, they see their blogs as the ants-pants.

No Agnostic, what really counts is the weight of evidence – not how popular your blog, or Don’s blog is, or how loud they cry.

To find the weight of evidence, you really do have to go to the Journals. It’s no easy task. However, it is made easier by scientific institutions, academies and organisations (that represent the particular sciences) adopting a stance on the overall findings.

These scientific institutions and academies don’t take their responsibilities lightly – after all, there is much at stake.

Their views are summarised here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_organizations

You can also see dissenting voices by scrolling down the page.

I don't begrudge Don Aitkin or anyone else going to their preferred blogs to support their own point of view. However, I would have thought most reasonable and rational people would seek out the views of the institutions, academies and organisations that represent the overwhelming work done in the scientific fields.

It would appear dissenters prefer blogs because the scientific academies, institutions and organisations don't represent the disenters' personal views.

Pericles,you seem to know a lot of detail about the http://ae911truth.org/ site.Getting a bit alarmed are you? Perhaps you should also make ref to http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ There you will see 400 professors,400 Medical Drs 250 Govt Officals including Ex CIA + 220 in the entertainment industry who do not believe the official 911 story.

Back to the lunatic Maurice Strong who instigated the IPCC.Maurice Strong 1997 National Review magazine "If we don't change our species will not survive,Frankly we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civisation to collapse."This is the very same nutter that wants a carbon tax on all life.It dovetails very well into the elite bankster philosophy.With the growth of robotics many humans will become obsolete and they will get in the way of their grand plan of Global Dominance.So the best way is to tax carbon the source of energy and life on the planet.

They will drive us into unbelievable grinding poverty if we let them.

Everyone would hope that global warming/climate change is not taking place, not least climate scientists who are looking at original data sets and processes consistent with the basic laws of physics and chemistry and the behaviour of the atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere system, including the role of greenhouse gases and aerosols.

The observations made in the article are based on datasets documented by the world's premier climate research organizations (NASA/GISS, Colorado NSIDC, Hadley-Met, Potsdam, CSIRO, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and so on) as well as on the peer-reviewed literature, summarized in statements by the world's Academies of science.

The scientific method depends critically on the peer review literature, where data and claims are tested by specialists with many years experience in the respective field. Not every single peer reviewed paper is correct, but those who question the science need to try and formulate their claims in scientific format submitted to scientific journals.

Unless, of course, the critics do not trust scientists, editors, reviewers and the world's scientific bodies, possibly the scientific method itself.

In this case perhaps the critics ought to travel to the many parts of the world, including Australia, already affected by climate change, extensive draughts, heat waves, hurricanes and extensive ice melt.

The essential analogy with the orchestrated campaign directed against medical scientists in connection with tobacco smoking needs to be borne in mind.