There is no weight of evidence for AGW, as asserted by bonmot. The warming from human emissions has never been measured. It cannot be, because it is trivial. He must have been reading some nonsense site like Skeptical Science.

Bonmot never gives any specific scientific references. They might limit him to reality.

The assertion that CO2 emitted by human activity could be identified has been shown to be nonsense.

Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics.

He gave an address recently; Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources showing that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels appear to be primarily related to natural temperature changes, not human CO2 emissions

He also commented:

“… I’ve been analyzing the C13/C12 ratio data from Mauna Loa. Just as others have found, the decrease in that ratio with time (over the 1990-2005 period anyway) is almost exactly what is expected from the depleted C13 source of fossil fuels. But guess what? If you detrend the data, then the annual cycle and interannual variability shows the “… I’ve been analyzing the C13/C12 ratio data from Mauna Loa. Just as others have EXACT SAME SIGNATURE. So, how can decreasing C13/C12 ratio be the signal of HUMAN emissions, when the NATURAL emissions have the same signal?”

http://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/the-part-of-natural-co2-emissions-dynamite-conference-by-prof-murray-salby/

Cousin Leo,

Of course there has been global warming and sea-level rise - about one degree, and two inches, in the last sixty years. Yes, some of it might be because of cyclical factors, some of the temperature rise at measuring stations may be attributed to the heat island effects of larger cities and of the building of structures and placing of populations nearer to measuring stations, that sort of thing.

But an inch or two, and a degree or two, is not to be sneezed at: not only that but some of those changes may well be attributable to human activity.

To get back to more important issues, such as the Finkelstein Report and its assault on one of the basic human rights, the freedom of expression, and in particular, its recommendations that news should be censored (let's call it what it is for a change). The question is always: who does the censoring ? And imagine if the 'other' side got into power and replaced all or 'our' censors' with 'their' censors: what then ?

Freedom of expression isn't just some frippery, some icing on a perfectly adequate cake - it is a vital part of any democratic life, and I would have thought that any genuine, progressive, human-oriented Left, of all people, would have been aware of that, if only through the bitter lessons of history. Maybe every generation has to learn those lessons the hard way, over and over.

Or not, as in the case of our Froggy friends :)

Cheers,

Joe

Where do you draw the line, Joe?

If the Murdoch press can behave like cowboys in Britain, why not here? And why shouldn't Gillard react to the events over there? The Murdoch Press is a big player in Australia.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

: )

(sweetie)

(sweetie) ? Mmmmmmm .......

And is Murdoch getting away with it ? Doesn't look like it. Is that sort of thing happening here ? Maybe, but it doesn't look like it all that much, no more in News Limited entities than elsewhere, just business as usual.

And if it were, are you saying that we need some Secret Court to police the media, rather than relying on current laws and exposing if and when they prove to be inadequate ?

As a number of posters have pointed out, suppose there were such an overarching Secret Committee: if government changed hands, what would there be to stop a new government, for argument's sake an Abbott government, from sacking all of the members of the Secret Court and appointing its own executioners (in Russia, of course, the old-school apparatchiki would all be shot over this weekend and replaced by Monday) ?

Freedom of speech is untidy, ragged, sometimes unpleasant and angry and hurtful, but a difference of views is surely vital for a vibrant democracy ?

Or should we be striving for Order ? Obedience to a Greater Good ?

Big hugs,

Joe

Why don't you 2 get a room.

Bonmot links to Vecchi. I’m a bit of a fan of Vecchi; he has been beavering away now for some time on a number of themes; one of those themes is that the large climate systems, the Hadley and Walker, are being affected by AGW and are weakening; they aren’t:

http://landshape.org/enm/files/2011/01/walkerarticle.pdf

Vecchi also subscribes to the theory that relative humidity is constant which would mean that if temperature is increasing then the specific humidity [SH] must be increasing; this is basic physics; BUT as I have shown SH is declining; this is a basic fact; this is also consistent with the fact that the temperature in the atmosphere is barely increasing [and hence NO tropical hot spot] when apparently the surface temperature is increasing:

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/presentation2.jpg

How to explain that which is totally contradictory to AGW? UHI, which is either ignored or misunderstood by AGW, does the job.

Vecchi is a modeller; he personifies the problem with AGW science; all the AGW evidence is produced by modelling and invariably contradicted by evidence. Koutsoyiannis has shown this by hindcasting the AGW modelling against past climate indices; the modelling could not even predict the past and yet we are expected to believe that it can predict the future.

Try harder bonmot.

"Why don't you 2 get a room"

I hope you're not referring to moi?

Loudmouth likes to turn on the smarm and patronise the ladies occasionally - I was just returning the favour.

He's not even French!