Cohenite
>> I notice you didn't provide any detail as to how there was any taking out of context. <<

Perhaps you should read the comments to your own link. Try here:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3707172.html

As one commenter notices about one of your claims, quoted:

“Clouds do not reflect heat!

Heat does not enter our atmosphere from the sun.

INSOLATION (INcoming SOLar radiATION) enters our atmosphere.
Of this insolation some (about 26%) is reflected back into space by the atmosphere and clouds, some (about 19%) is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds and some (about 55%) makes it to the surface where about 51% is absorbed and about 4% is reflected back into space.

Heat is only generated when radiation is absorbed by a body. As to it's transfer this is done by physical means (convection, conduction, etc.). All warm bodies also lose some energy as radiation, this why you can see a fire.

If you are going to put yourself forward as someone arguing scientific merit, I suggest you understand the basics principles of your topic first.” End quote.

Cohenite, you also claimed to have a degree in Climatology.

Even "idiots" and "hypocrites" like me know a Bachelor of Arts with geography ‘sub-major’ is not Climatology but simply delusional.

Drat this comment quota, it must play havoc with the turn-over.

Anyway bonmot has gone the old ad hom; which is pathetic, and typical; and redundant because Michael Brown, astronomer to the stars, has already been assiduous in making accusations about qualifications; the accusations are rebutted here:

https://theconversation.edu.au/how-david-beckham-caused-global-warming-the-man-u-climate-model-4548

Geography back in the 60’s and 70’s was still where hard physical science involving observations, measurements and theory was dealt with as the contemporary course descriptions readily indicate. Today it is the repository of sustainability, ecotists and gaia worshippers. I deeply regret that change for the worse.

But 2 years of climate studies back in the good old days justifies the initial claim, which in any event has been changed to reflect the 2 year status; if you don’t like it, too bad.

As for bonmot’s quote supposedly demolishing the basics of the article; there were 3 genuine criticisms of the article; one concerned the Fu et al paper, another the McShane and Wyner paper, both of which were answered before the comments closed. The 3rd was dealt with at the above link to the conversation.

Bonmot’s one about clouds doesn’t rate because in any discussion about AGW it is meaningless to separate the radiative properties of clouds from their heating and cooling properties. In any event the point about the failure of the models to understand clouds was from the emails not the article!

Ok, roger that.

Cohenite thinks it ok to label detractors as "idiots" yet then has the audacity to play the 'old ad hom' canard.

Who are the hypocrites again, Anthony?

Yep, who am I to call you delusional if you think a 40 year-ago geography sub major in an arts degree is the same as todays real climatologist, or atmospheric physicist, or meteorologist, or ... others might get the drift. I'm sure Roy Spencer or the IPCC Chair would be amused at the mendacity of your claims, but there you go.

Tell you what Anthony, when you publish your 'thesis' in the Journal of Climatology (say) not your blog, not OLO, or any other of your favourite haunts) we will take notice. Until then you will not get any more traction from this simple minded "idiot" ;)

cohenite,

"I've been verballed; everytime I call somebody and idiot I give salient, cogent reasons for doing so"

Oh really...every time?

"You're an idiot Poirot."

....anyhoo, this idiot assumes that the other idiot, bonmot, is a tad more informed than your average OLO climate blusterer.

I think you should kindly ask him to explain the science to you - I'm sure if you asked nicely, he'd be happy to oblige.

Verballed again:

"you think a 40 year-ago geography sub major in an arts degree is the same as todays real climatologist, or atmospheric physicist, or meteorologist, or ... others might get the drift. I'm sure Roy Spencer or the IPCC Chair would be amused at the mendacity of your claims,"

Never said that but I did study climatology; and what a stupid conjunction, Spencer and Pauchuri.

Anyway you 2 clowns, bonmot and Poirot, are not here to discuss science. If you were you would have congratulated me on explaining Fu et al, McShane and Wyner and pointing out the connection of water with the lapse rate and why a THS can't be explained by the failed theory of AGW.

And it is a failed theory which is propped up by proven liars, at a political, scientific and business level, and supported by a shrinking coven of self-regarding elites like you 2 clowns.

But go on guys, explain why my explanation of the relation of water with the lapse rate is wrong; prove me wrong; I go the full yards with my attempt to explain the science; all I get from you 2 is rubbish about inadequate qualifications; prove me wrong.

cohenite,

My science qualifications are inadequate - although the same can't be said for bonmot.

I'm more interested in the socio-economic machinations that drive the denialist movement...the big oil sponsorship...the latent threat to the capitalist status quo, etc. - and the employment on non-scientists such as Lord Monckton to push the agenda.

I have faith in the "scientists" to elaborate on the 'science".

Interesting article posted in OLO's general section this morning:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/-1p2hl.html.... a psychological perspective to climate change skepticism.