ammonite - peer review is not about facts, it is about acceptability by ones peers, the whole process is now known to be corrupt in climate science, since the CRU climate gate affair exposed the tactics by influential figures.

When you posit "Facts are a certainty. They do not change from person to person or from one location to the next. They can be proven with evidence" What are the facts, in relation to peer review, when the paper authors withhold the data the paper is based on?

Do you believe that peer review, reinforces or creates underlying proof, that it creates facts (?).. oh dear, talk about misinformation. So when the CRU team conspired to delete emails and data .. how does peer review of their work occur?

If it's done by mates, everything is fine .. yes? How did Briffa's tree ring work get peer reviewed when he refused to release data? It still got peer reviewed .. based on what?

Seriously, I don't think most of you who chant peer review actually know what the process is for doing it. It's just become an alarmist mantra, and is quite meaningless.

"They will continue to confuse opinion with fact.", no, that's what you are doing by swallowing, peer review equals proven data.

I love this, "Watch out for the trap of confusing fact with opinion" and would this be valid when we get told, lots of people believe something, therefore, we all believe it and it "beggars belief" that you do not?

Consensus in science is opinion, not fact ...thanks for the tip!

I don't know why you lot keep going back to try to underline factual peer review process when the evidence from your side is seriously polluted, but clearly you are all still in denial about that.

Yet you wonder why climate science and the whole AGW belief process is in trouble, has lost credibility and the tax is driving the current coalition ALP/Green government into such distress.

it "beggars belief" .. and btw, Googling links is fun, but is hardly an argument.

Rich2, still no science from you and another irrelevant link about a pretenced clearing of the disgraceful Climategate miscreants.

What is your problem Rich2, do you not understand what is science and what is diversion from science?

Michael Mann and Wikipedia are diversions from science, as are the efforts of the Climategate miscreants who review each others “science”.

The political experts who gain control of announcements from scientific bodies, to make unscientific announcements regarding AGW are not proof of the announcement’s content.

It is more relevant to read the letters of the members of reputable scientific bodies complaining about this hijacking, and in some cases resigning. The media never publishes these, but they can be found on the web.

Come up with science, or clarify your position Rich2.

Are you obtuse or are you dishonest? It is not possible to know from your laughable posts which one you are, so help us out, or alternatively, say something sensible.

Leo Lane,

I gave you a link to the "leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts."

However you still say "still no science from you". Sorry can't help you any more.

By the way you are getting a bit personal and shrill. Unnecessary and just makes you look unprofessional and desperate.

Malcolm Roberts has a look at bonmot’s little mate Ove Hough-Guldberg, another proven alarmist who bases his nonsensical statements on the perennial “threats” to the Great Barrier Reef which he fabricates.

The reef has an adaptation and survival mechanism called “bleaching”. Ove disingenuously points to incidents of bleaching as indications that the reef has suffered environmental damage. A strange choice of a technique to mislead, because examination of the site a few months later will show the reef in good health.

It might fool people like bonmot, or bonmot may wish to cooperate in the deception.

There is little doubt that Ove is disingenuous, and Malcolm Roberts does a rundown on him here:

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/ABC%20transcripta.pdf

Ove was asked for a reference to science which justified his assertion of AGW, and of course, like bonmot and Rich2, failed to supply it.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measureable effect on climate.

As Rich2 points out, my saying it does not make it so, it is the absence of any science to the contrary, despite the outlay of $billions in a futile effort to find any such science.

Saying that human emissions have any significance to climate does not make it so, no matter who says it, without some scientific proof.

We have to ignore people like Rich2, bonmot, Ammonite, sarnian, Kenny, Wobbles, or any one else who makes unsubstantiated claims of AGW on this list.

No more diversions to disingenuous websites Rich2, just state the science. I know that you cannot and all you have is attempts to worm out of it and make misleading generalisations.

This is the first time I have heard "clear definite truthful and unequivocal", as my posts are, described as "shrill", but I suppose such inaccuracy is the least of Rich2's peculiarities.

Can someone show me some graphs that show climate change or non climate change.

I dont want to read what they said I want to see some graphs of figures, If someone could put up a link.

MickC. This may help:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Good luck.