"All that remains is to convince cohenite"

I yearn to be convinced by my betters about AGW.

In the meantime critique the real references I have linked to:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/has-global-warming-been-disproved-part-2.html

Go on Robert, pick a couple from the 70 or so references and impress us with your understanding; I've read all of them and I'm happy to discuss any of them with anyone.

Robert L

A small victory.. the fact that the Met Office found virtually no warming or statistically insignificant warming over such a long period, should be enough to close the global warming shop and head for the hills...

"...real references..."

(Ho, Ho, Ho)

Linking to blogs by non-climate scientists - as in joannenova.com and the climatescepticsparty.blogspot - and another link to an article written by the authors of those blogs are not real [scientific] references.

You have nothing to contribute to this debate Poirot so I do not understand why you persist with demonstrating your ideologically based mental constraints and gullibility; all the links are to papers by climate experts.

I bet you haven't read one. Your arrogant ignorance is tedious.

Once again, I have been away and unable to comment. But here's a few reactions.

The OLO article is a shorter version of the post on my website, and that in turn built on a paper by Crompton and McAneney. My phrase 'four peak periods since the mid 1960s' could have been better expressed. I meant that in the last fifty years there have been four periods where natural disasters clumped — that is, they are not rising in some sort of linear fashion in any way matching either CO2 emissions or global warming.

On tornadoes, storms with a peculiar and characteristic rotating column of air that connects the ground with the lower level of the clouds: we don't have many, or any that I am aware of. We do have violent storms, which we call hurricanes or cyclones. I dealt with this on an earlier post on my website. I can't find any reference on the web to the storm at Eidsvold/Theodore, and would be grateful for a reference. Intense storms that snap trees are rare, but known — I have seen the results of one on the NSW southern coastal range. They aren't tornadoes as the Americans define such storms.

I am not a 'qualified climatologist', but I'm not sure who is. No leading 'climate scientist' has formal qualifications in climate science, because such a degree is new. They all have qualifications in something else. Medical Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty makes pronouncements on global warming, but he has no formal qualifications in climate science. What is the test? Who is entitled to speak? On what?

My statement that the three big disasters of the last decade are unlikely to be linked to 'climate change' is a statement based on the evidence in the Crompton and McAneney graph.

Don, you may be interested in this earlier paper on normalised insurance losses:

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publications/WorkingPapers/Working%20Papers/WPapers30-39/WP30_insured-damage-natural-disasters.pdf