@ Leo Lane:
The main thrust of my message was that the author had based his opinion on nothing and that even that single supposed fact was open to challenge.

I stand by my words.

Regarding your attempts to claim that the earth has not warmed for 14 years or thereabouts, that is irrelevant - the person who wrote the article has the duty to include the justification in it. He did not.

Further, conclusions based on only 14 years of the complete data set must be contentious in the extreme. To say that I do not accept their veracity is an understatement. It is the scientific knowledge gathered and analysed over decades and centuries which is relevant, amateur prognostications based on a selected subset of the available data. To project future outcomes based on such data is akin to predicting that the price of a corporation's share will never rise again, despite the fact that this share has a hundred year history of overall rises plus a flattish recent 14 years. This is blind, uncomprehending nonsense and completely ignores the role of statistical deviations away from the mean.

The past 14 years of atmospheric temperature records have or have not demonstrated that el nino or random variations or some other factor has hidden the well-established longer term trend. So what? Conclusions based on analysis of the whole of the data set from the longer term are far less likely to be a statistical outlier than conclusions drawn from a subset of the data.

This will be my last post on this thread, but I really couldn't let Curmudgeon's latest comment pass.

What? CO2 has no influence on climate outcomes? This flies in the face of much of the accepted science.

Curmudgeon, I suggest that you publish your work on this subject as soon as possible, because a Nobel Prize is certainly awaiting if your new theory stands up.

There's a second Nobel awaiting for the author of the work which demonstrates that the sun is the source of the perceived change (NB: this is the change which others claim isn't actually... y'know... changing... or, at least, has failed to do so for 14 years... or something.)

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the climate is indeed changing and boiling frogs continue to demonstrate through their demise that slow increases in temperature can be difficult to perceive.

Tim Ball is one of the growing number of scientists willing to speak out. The rest, either ignorant cannon fodder or self-interested parties benefitting from the scam of the century will no doubt disagree.

I am constantly amazed at how ordinary posters believe they can argue a technical point with a a professor of climatology anyway. Apparently their respect for science and scientists deserts them when they hear a dissenting voice.

The likes of the JohnBennetts of this world become very emotional when their toady like allegiance to the cause is in danger of being exposed for what it is. His post contains NO facts but simply emotionally driven attack suggesting he is offended by an alternative view. Sorry mate, but acting offended, and calling someone vile and telling a story about a frog simply makes no difference..a scam is a scam.

Simply look up Maurice Strong and tell me this guy is someone you would support. This scam has a history which few are interested in investigating.If you do you can see its a power grab of scandalous proportions which has enlisted the support of the gullible Left. But it must be funded by someone and that someone is you.

What would be the first felt effect of adjusting our economies to carbon neutral ones, to ameliorate against human caused climate change?
What would happen if we adopted all those things we know would help provide that outcome> Broad scale algae farming, converting all our biological waste into methane based energy provision?
Small localised pebble or thorium reactors, which then virtually halve the cost of energy? Hydrogen production utilising free solar thermal heat?
Well the very first effect would be the virtual bankruptcy of most of the fossil fuel industry, followed by widespread/global economic recovery?
Who wouldn't want that?
Well, the fossil fuel industry and those middle eastern potentates, who rely on it as their only source of income or influence/social outcomes; or indeed, those who see oil as a weapon?
So, who is opposed to acting to address climate change?
Well how about all of the above, who collectively, courtesy of petro dollars, currently wield the most power in the world?
We help to maintain the current status quo, by preferring fully imported and very much dirtier oil, when viewed in comparison to locally available products!
We are terrified, allegedly, that we could lose the reef and all the dollars it currently earns for us, as a direct result of carbon pollution?
Yet we continue to import oil products that produce four times more carbon in total, than that that lies beneath the very same reef system?
Rhrosty.

Out of "control" by who or what?
Perhaps the heartless "Heart"-land Institute or the right-wing Global Spin machine?

Atman,

"....a professor of climatology..."?

How about "Professor of Geography"

http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball