Robert le Paige quotes Arctic ice melt as proof of AGW. But he fails to mention that on the same day as the Arctic ice minimum, 22 September, Antarctic ice extent reached an all time measured high. That relationship between the two polar icecaps can be explained by a number of climate theories but carbon dioxide and AGW is not one of them. Yes Robert, you should open your eyes a little wider and not be so selective as to what you read.

Fred Singer replies to William Nordhaus on the NYRB here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/climate_realism.html

He starts:
“Even with the Kyoto Protocol due to expire at the end of this year, Obama persists in giving highest priority to climate change policy if re-elected. Does the U.S. really want to lead the world in committing economic suicide?”

And closes with:
“Finally, it should be obvious, perhaps, but needs to be stated explicitly that if a warmer climate produces positive net benefits rather than damages, then, in principle, one cannot even conduct a cost-benefit analysis. Nor should one try to mitigate emissions of CO2 in any way; our current policies are simply misguided.”

He points out that authoritative research has shown that warming may be net beneficial this century. Who wants to risk giving up that opportunity when the evidence of impacts of any warming we might get is so uncertain?

Evidence to support Fred Singer’s opening sentence – Obama is the most vociferous proponent of climate change policies - is shown in this web site: http://www.carboncapturereport.org/
Obama comes out top of the world in being reported on climate change, renewable energy, green energy, alternative energy, solar, wind, biofuels. On Carbon Credits Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are top of the world (yesterday; I haven’t looked at today’s report yet).

This site also shows clearly how the interest in climate change is dying. Select “Climate Change” and look at the activity chart. It shows activity on news articles, news stories, blogs, tweets, You Tube Videos and the tone of the discussion (read the help to understand what 'tone' means). Deselect to see only the ones you want to see. It is clear interest in Climate Change is dying and has been since Copenhagen.

There’s lots more on this site too. I searched for 'Peter Lang' then drilled down and found this excellent quote from Jo Novas’s web site. (Its just as valid now as it was over a year ago): https://bleyzie.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/thoughts-on-the-carbon-tax-package/#comment-6226

Robert LePage

Rapid melting of the artic ice? Oh come now, surely you know better now than to base any statement on activist material. The actual situation is that the summer melt of the artic sea ice (rather than the arctic itself) was at a record for as far as the satellite records go, by a small margin. But its known that the sea ice melt has varied before substantially over decades, centuries and eons.

It is also possible to point to material measuring a degree of melting in the artic but it is not pssible to say just how any of this fits into natural cycles of melt and refreezing and how that might relate to temperatures, as the detailed record for any length of time just aren't there. Scientists know somethign about the broad trends from geological times but that's about it.

So its not possible to say anything is "alarming" as no-one knows what the current trends mean.

I was chatting to the wife of a friend last week - she came from South Australia's Riverland, home of citrus, grapes, etc., and she was saying how, near where she grew up there, the blockies are pulling out grapes and putting in apples.

The fools ! What are they thinking - that the Riverland is Tasmania !?

Neither author appears to have any qualifications in climatology whatsoever. What is the cause of the conservatives' "scepticism" in regard to climate change, perhaps they have large investments in CO2 emitting industries? Or perhaps it's all the Greenies' fault?

For the umpteenth time, let's hear from some climatologist sceptics, who actually know what they're talking about. Well?

Exceptions that prove the rule, is just another of those clichés, that if repeated enough, become gospel?
I believe in evidence based science and tests, which when endlessly repeated still can be relied on to give the exact same result!
This is the very bedrock of good science.
As are peer reviewed results/publication.
Lest we forget, men of letters and science once believed and even taught that the world was flat, just six thousand years old and at the centre of the known universe.
Consensus didn't make it true any more than the so-called exception to the rule!
What ruled it out was practical common sense and endless observations, or if you will, good science.
Now we do know a number of things borne out by observation.
The decade before this one was the hottest on record, and the one we are living through now is even hotter.
The seas are hotting up, by as much as 2C in some places? Moreover, they are becoming progressively more acidic in line with the increasing carbon in our atmosphere.
Further, the oceans are currently rising by around a measurable 10 centimetres a year, and twice that to our immediate north?
Now are any of these events or circumstance caused by human activity, in whole or in part?
Well, I for one sure as hell hope so, given we can, just by making some simple easily achieved changes; and given the political will, mitigate against man-made climate change?
If it is a natural and therefore unstoppable event, then we better hurry and get off the planet, preferably before we all fry?
Rhrosty.