Anthony: If you want to “talk the talk” you must “walk the walk” – particularly on complex and technical nuances that pervade the scientific literature. These are discussed/debated in great detail at the associated conferences, seminars and forums – particularly for those that work in the respective ‘climate sciences’.

You don’t do this, despite being encouraged to submit/present a paper to any one of the respected scientific publishing houses. By exposing your critique of any of my citations, you will truly expose your ‘credentials’ as someone who can really “talk the talk” and “walk the walk” – or be shown up to the experts/peers as what they really are – smoke screens and mirrors.

Of course the professions need “qualifications to be considered to have expertise”. That is no different to any of the so called ‘climate scientists’ – a.k.a. real climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric physicists, biogeochemists, etc., etc. You don’t have any such qualification, you are a charlatan.

Anthony, you deliberately go out of your way to confuse and abuse the science. I suspect you do this because you simply do not understand the underlying science. OLO is simply no place to detail the technicalities and nuances, particularly to a non-expert audience. No Anthony, ‘blogging’ on popular (or not so popular) blog sites where a non-expert audience doesn’t really cut it, sorry.

Be assured though, the overwhelming view of the vast majority of scientists that "talk the talk" AND “walk the walk” is that AGW is real, it is a significant component of the current period of global warming, and that we must adopt global policies to limit and mitigate the impact.

This will be my last comment to you here, Anthony.

Yes AGW is real but caused by CO2 emissions is not real.

JF Aus, you have proved my point - au revoir.

"I suspect you do this because you simply do not understand the underlying science."

I understand it better than you buddy. You've put up your best, I've looked at them and spat them back out. What you don't get is that is what I do for a living where if I get it wrong I don't get paid. I assess complex legal disputes some of which simply leave the so-called 'difficulty' of climate science for dead.

As a distraction you a disappointment; and being distractions is all climate scientists are good for.

Is it possible to get a straight answer (okay, an exponentially curved answer) on AGW ?

* Sea-levels have risen by two inches in sixty years, and the rate of increase is what ? And the rate of increase is increasing at what rate ? How long have we got ? I can understand that anybody building within two to four inches above mean sea-level is in danger of having their proerty flooded in the next sixty years, but what else is implied by this dreadful possibility ?

* Temperatures, at least in Australia, have risen by two degrees in sixty years, in southern Tasmania as much as in northern Australia [except that, it has to be said, in the daily weather reports, maximum maximums in the last twelve years for Darwin are extremely rare and are probably balanced by the number of minimum minimums), and are rising exponentially at what rate ? How long have we got before we all fry ? Instead of picking apricots in 46 degrees, can I expect to be picking them in 48 degrees ? 50 degrees ?

And it's all man-made. Gosh, we're so evil.

Sorry, I know that the mark of a believer is that he/she does not ask questions, but I'm still new to this game, a probationer, an acolyte. Dare i say it: a sceptic.

Teach me that I may learn :)

Joe

Loudmouth; since our resident climate scientist, bonmot, has done a Clive and left in a huff, let me point you towards some information.

The Bureau of Meteorology temperature site is here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=T

As you can see the increase in temperature since 1910 has been about 0.8C not the 2C you noted.

However that 0.8C increase is subject to a host of qualifications which would lead any reasonable person, ie not a climate scientist, to suspect that 0.8C is unreliable:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/audit/anao-request-audit-bom.pdf

There is cogent evidence to suggest the original High Quality [HQ] temperature network had a warming bias of 40% so that instead of a temperature trend of 0.8C the actual temperature increase was 0.5C.

BoM has just brought out a new temperature network called ACORN. It appears to have a similar warming bias to the old HQ network:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/threat-of-anao-audit-means-australias-bom-throws-out-temperature-set-starts-again-gets-same-results/#comment-1070341